TRINITY  COLLEGE 
LIBRARY 

DURHAM,  NORTH  CAROLINA 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/normansineurope01john_0 


Epochs  of  Modern  History 


THE 


NORMANS  IN  EUROPE 


BY  THE 

REV.  A.  H.  JOHNSON,  M.  A. 


LATE  FELLOW  OF  ALL  SOULS  COLLEGE,  OXFORD 
HISTORICAL  LECTURER  TO  TRINITY,  ST.  JOHN’j 
WADHAM 


jy  v  of 

TRINIT  v  COLLEo 

MAPS 


&  R  A  R  y 


WITH 


>>>rrrrTv1 


NEW  YORK: 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS, 
1889. 


PREFACE. 


The  history  of  the  Scandinavian  Exodus  which  be¬ 
gan  in  the  ninth  century  falls  conveniently  into  two 
periods. 

During  the  first,  (800  circ. — 912)  the  people  of 
Denmark,  Sweden  and  Norway  harassed  Europe  with 
their  inroads,  and  formed  definite  settlements  in  the 
British  Isles,  Russia,  and  France. 

During  the  second,  (1029-1066)  France  itself 
became  the  starting-place  for  a  new  series  of  incur¬ 
sions,  led  by  men  of  Scandinavian  descent,  who  had 
by  that  time  adopted  French  customs  and  language. 
To  this  period  belong  the  settlements  in  Spain  and 
Italy,  and  the  Norman  conquest  of  England. 

The  aim  of  this  book  is  to  present  a  connected 
view  of  these  incursions,  and  to  bring  clearly  before 
the  reader  the  important  fact,  that  the  Norman  Con¬ 
quest  was  only  the  last  of  this  long  series  of  settle¬ 
ments  and  conquests. 

The  narrow  limits  required  by  the  character  of  the 
series  have  necessitated  much  compression. 

Taking,  therefore,  the  Norman  Conquest  as  the 
centre  of  the  book,  I  have  contented  myself  with  the 
briefest  sketch  of  those  settlements  which  do  not  in¬ 
timately  affect  that  event;  and  concentrating  atten¬ 
tion  on  that  of  the  Seine,  having  sketched  its  fortunes 

v 


VI 


Preface. 


in  some  detail,  and  traced  the  growing  connection 
between  Normandy  and  England  which  resulted  in 
the  conquest  of  the  latter  country. 

Finally,  following  the  Normans  to  England,  I  have 
dwelt  especially  on  their  influence  on  our  country  and 
the  principles  of  our  government,  and  drawn  out  the 
relations  of  Norman  England  with  France  and  Sicily. 

Want  of  space  alone  has  prevented  me  from  deal¬ 
ing  more  particularly  with  the  Norman  settlement  in 
Italy,  one  of  the  most  interesting  of  all,  and  one 
which  requires  the  more  attention,  because  it  has  not 
been  adequately  treated  of  by  an  English  writer. 
But  the  history  of  that  island  belongs  to  Italian  and 
Eastern  rather  than  to  English  history,  and  it  is  one 
important  period  of  English  history  which  I  have 
attempted  to  illustrate. 

In  one  respect  I  feel  conscious  of  having  departed 
somewhat  from  the  rule  of  the  series.  There  are 
more  names  than  I  could  have  wished.  This  I  have 
found  unavoidable :  but  to  obviate  as  far  as  possible 
the  difficulty  which  may  thereby  be  caused  to  the 
young  reader,  I  have  added  a  few  genealogies  of  the 
most  important  families. 

I  have  also  given  a  short  list  of  the  authorities 
which  may  be  useful  to  those  who  would  extend  their 
studies. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  offer  my  best  thanks  to 
Professor  Stubbs  for  much  kind  advice  and  invaluable 
criticism. 


Oxford  :  March,  1877. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  NORTHMEN  IN  THEIR  HOME.  A.  D.  700-855. 

PACK. 

Social  and  political  condition  of  Denmark, 

Norway,  and  Sweden  in  the  eighth  century,  3-7 

Their  mythology .  8-n 

Change  in  the  life  of  the  people.  Disturb. 

ances  at  home,  end  of  eighth  century.  .  .  1 1 

The  Vikings  begin  to  trouble  Europe  ...  1 1 

Reigns  of  Harald  Harfagr  of  Norway  ...  12 

850  (circ.)  Gorm  the  Old  of  Denmark ...  12 

Eric  of  Sweden .  12 

They  subdue  the  petty  chieftains .  12 

The  exodus  of  the  Northmen  definitely  com¬ 
mences  .  13 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  INVASIONS  OF  THE  NORTHMEN. 

Two  periods  of  invasion:  (a)  787-855 — Plun¬ 
dering  raids,  with  no  permanent  results.  .  15 

(£)  855—9 1 2 — A  period  of  conquest  and  set¬ 
tlement  .  16 

Character,  dress,  arms,  and  ships  of  the 

Northmen . 17-20 

I.  The  Danish  Conquest  of  England,  855-878 

878.  Peace  of  Wedmore . 20-22 

Its  effects  upon  England .  21 

958.  Edgar  the  Peaceful  king  of  all  England  .  22 

rii 


viii  Contents. 


PAGE. 

787.  II.  The  Norwegian  invasions  of  Scotland, 

the  Orkneys,  and  Shetland .  22 

875.  The  Jarls  of  Orkney .  23 

1469.  Union  of  Orkneys  and  Shetlands  with 

Scotland .  24 

III.  Norwegian  invasions  of  the  Western  Isles  24 

787-906.  Naval  empire  founded  under  the  Hy-Ivar, 

end  of  ninth  century .  24 

980.  Battle  of  Tara .  25 

1014.  Battle  of  Clontarf .  25 

1098.  Attempts  of  Magnus  of  Norway  to  re¬ 
establish  his  authority .  25 

Il9o(circ.)  Somarled .  25 

1266.  The  Isles  ceded  to  Scotland .  25 

IV.  Norwegian  Settlements  in  Iceland,  Faroe, 

874-981.  and  Greenland .  26 

930.  The  Republic  of  Iceland .  27 

1150.  Fall  of  the  Republic .  28 

1250.  Iceland  occupied  by  Kings  of  Norway.  28 

862-879.  V.  Ruric  the  Swede  invades  Russia  and 

settles  at  Kiev .  29 

S65-1043.  Commercial  relations  with,  and  attacks 

on,  Constantinople .  29 

988.  Vladimir  accepts  Christianity .  30 

1030-6.  Connection  between  Russia  and  the  West  30 

The  Varangian  Guard .  30 

1032-1066.  Harald  Hardrada . 31-32 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  SETTLEMENTS  IN  GAUL.  799-912. 

Invasions  of  Europe  by  Hungarians,  Saracens, 

and  Northmen . 32-33 

Geographical  divisions  of  the  incursions  of 
the  Northmen .  34 


Contents. 


IX 


PAGE. 

The  Seine  Settlements .  35 

888.  Rollo  lays  siege  to  Paris .  35 

912.  Gains  Normandy  at  the  Treaty  of  Clair  on  Epte  36 

Condition  of  Europe  in  912 .  37 

888.  Dismemberment  of  empire  of  the  Karolings 

on  death  of  Charles  III .  38 

Rise  of  four  kingdoms  : — 

912-936.  (1)  Germany,  under  Conrad  of  Franco¬ 
nia  and  Henry  of  Saxony  ....  38 

962.  (2)  Italy  and  Empire  under  Otho  ...  38 

881-912.  (3)  Burgundy  (a)  Transjurane  under  Ru¬ 
dolf  .  39 

879-928.  (/3)  Cisjurane  under  Boso  and  Louis  of 

Provence .  39 

899-929.  (4)  Kingdom  of  West  Franks  under 

Charles  the  Simple . 40-41 

Later  Years  of  Duke  Rollo  : 

922.  Rollo  supports  Charles  the  Simple  against 

Robert  of  Paris  and  Herbert  of  Vermandois  42 

923.  Charles  the  Simple  taken  prisoner  and  Rudolf 

of  Burgundy  made  King  of  West  Franks  .  42 

923-932.  Rollo  gains  the  Bessin,  abdicates,  and  dies  .  42-43 

CHAPTER  IV. 

WILLIAM  LONGSWORD.  927-943. 

Competition  for  the  See  of  Rheims  ....  44 

936.  Death  of  Rudolf  of  Burgundy.  Lewis  IV. 

King  of  West  Franks .  44 

930-932.  Revolt  of  Brittany.  Normandy  gains  the 

Cotentin  and  Channel  Islands .  46 

932-933.  Revolt  of  Danish  party  against  William 

Longsword.  Its  effects  on  his  policy  .  .  48 

942.  Murder  of  William  Longsword  by  Arnulf  of 

Flanders . 51-53 


X 


Contents. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  CAPETIAN  REVOLUTION. 

PAGE. 

942-996.  Duke  Richard  the  Fearless . 52-71 

943.  Renewed  Danish  revolt .  53 

Lewis  IV.  and  Hugh  of  Paris  invade  Nor¬ 
mandy  and  seize  Richard .  55 

945.  Richard  escapes  from  Laon  and  defeats  Lewis 

at  the  battle  of  the  Dives .  56 

Richard  marries  the  daughter  of  Hugh  of 

Paris  and  becomes  his  vassal .  57 

946-953.  War  of  two  kings  against  the  two  dukes  .  .  58 

954.  Death  of  Lewis  IV.  Lothaire  chosen  king.  60 
956.  Hugh  the  Great  succeeded  by  Hugh  Capet, 
under  the  guardianship  of  Richard  the 
Fearless .  62 

986.  Lothaire  succeeded  by  Lewis  V .  62 

987.  Death  of  Lewis  V.  Hugh  Capet  elected  King 

ofp'rance .  63 

Importance  of  the  Capetian  revolution  ...  68 

991.  Richard’s  war  with  England .  69 

His  death .  70 

CHAPTER  VI. 

RICHARD  THE  GOOD  AND  THE  NORMAN  SETTLEMENT  IN  ITALY. 

996-IO26. 

996.  Accession  of  Richard  the  Good .  71 

997.  The  revolt  of  the  peasants .  71 

Relations  with  Paris,  Burgundy,  Blois,  Brit¬ 
tany,  and  England . 74~77 

Normandy  the  centre  of  renewed  spirit  of 

enterprise.  Roger  de  Toesny  in  Spain.  .  80 

1026.  Settlement  at  Aversa .  80 

Condition  of  South  of  Italy .  8 1 

The  Conquest  of  Apulia .  81 


Contents. 


xi 


PAGE. 

Robert  Guiscard,  Duke  of  Apulia . 83-85 

1060-1090  Conquest  of  Sicily  by  Roger  I  .  .  .  .  •  .  85 

1130  Roger  II.  King  of  Apulia  and  Sicily  ...  85 

1 194-1 195  Conquest  of  Sicily  by  Henry  V .  86 


CHAPTER  VII. 

RICHARD  III.  AND  ROBERT  THE  MAGNIFICENT. 


IO26-IO35. 

1026-1028  Richard  III .  86 

1028  Robert  the  Magnificent .  87 

1028-1035  Relations  with  Brittany,  Flanders, 

France,  and  England .  88 

Acquisition  of  the  Vexin .  89 

1035  His  pilgrimage  and  death .  90 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

EARLIER  YEARS  OF  WILLIAM  IN  NORMANDY.  IO35-IO49. 

1035  William  the  Bastard .  90 

Rebellions  against  the  young  duke.  .  .  92 

1047  Organized  conspiracy  against  William. 

Guy  of  Burgundy  claims  the  dukedom  93 

Henry  I.  supports  William  for  the  last 

time .  94 

Character  of  the  struggle .  94 

Victory  of  Val-es-Dunes .  95 

1049  William’s  treatment  of  Alencon  ...  95 

CHAPTER  IX. 

- FEUDAL  SYSTEM  AND  MONASTICISM.  800-1050. 

Origin  of  feudalism  as  a  system  of  land 


tenure  and  a  system  of  government  . 
Feudal  courts — incidents  and  aids.  .  . 


96-100 

100-102 


Contents. 


xii 

PACK. 

Chivalry .  102 

Influence  of  feudalism  on  society  and  on 

the  individual .  103-112 

Feudalism  in  Normandy .  108 

940-1034  Monasticism  in  Normandy .  no 

1034- 1042  Bee .  in 

Lanfranc  at  Bee .  113 

Influence  of  monasteries .  1 14 

CHAPTER  X. 

REVIEW  OF  ENGLISH  HISTORY.  IOI 7-IO53. 

1017-1035  The  empire  of  Canute .  115 

1035- 1042  Reigns  of  Harold  and  Harthacnut  .  ...  1 1 6 

1042  Edward  the  Confessor.  The  four  earldoms.  1 1 7-1 19 

1042-1051  Ascendency  of  Godwine .  119 

1051- 1052  Exile  of  Godwine .  120 

Duke  William  visits  England .  12 1 

1052- 1053  Return  and  death  of  Godwine .  122 

CHAPTER  XI. 

LATER  YEARS  OF  WILLIAM  IN  NORMANDY.  I053-IO63. 

1053  William  marries  Matilda  of  Flanders.  Op¬ 

position  and  reconciliation  of  Lanfranc.  123 

Changed  relations  between  France  and 

Normandy .  125 

1054  Rebellion  against  William  aided  by  Henry 

I.  Victory  of  Mortimer .  126 

900-1040  Retrospect  of  Angevin  history . 128-129 

1058  Coalition  of  Henry  I.  and  Geoffrey  of  An¬ 
jou  against  William.  Normandy  invaded. 

Victory  of  Varaville .  129 

1060  Death  of  Henry  I.  and  Geoffrey  of  Anjou  .  130 

1062  William  claims  and  conquers  Maine  .  .  .  132 


Contents.  xiii 

FAGS. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  CONQUEST  OF  ENGLAND.  IO52-I066. 

1052  Supremacy  of  Harold  and  his  family  .  .  .  133 

1062  His  Welsh  war .  134 

1064  His  oath  to  William .  134 

1066  Death  of  Edward  the  Confessor.  Harold 

elected  King  of  England .  135 

Invasion  of  Tostig  and  Harald  Hardrada. 

Victory  of  Stamford  Bridge .  136 

William  prepares  for  invasion  of  England  138 
Sept.  Lands  at  Pevensey.  The  battle  of  Hast¬ 
ings  . 1 39- *42 

William  marches  on  London  and  is  elected 

king  by  the  Witan .  143 

1067.  Leaves  for  Normandy .  144 

English  revolts .  145 

1 1 71.  Final  conquest  of  England  .  .  .  .  147 

CHAPTER  XIII.  </ 

william’s-english  policy.  1070-1087. 

I.  William  and  the  English .  148 

450-1066.  Sketch  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  institutions  148-160 
Social  and  official  ranks  .  ......  148 

Tenure  of  land .  149 

Local  and  ecclesiastical  organization.  .  148-150 

Judicial  system .  1 5 1 

Police . •  .  .  .  •  152 

Growth  of  thaneship .  153 

Rise  of  territorial  jurisdictions .  154 

Growth  of  burghs .  156 

The  Witenagemot .  157 

The  king .  158 

Distinction  between  Anglo-Saxon  and 

Continental  feudalism .  159 


XIV 


Contents. 


PAGS. 

1070-1087.  William’s  policy  that  of  adaptation  .  .  160-163 

Effect  of  Norman  Conquest  on  the 

lower  and  higher  classes .  1 63 

Beneficial  results  of  the  Norman  con¬ 
quest .  165 

II.  William  and  the  Norman  barons  .  .  .  167 

Introduces  feudal  system  of  land  tenure 
gradually,  but  checks  the  feudal  in¬ 
dependence  of  his  barons .  168 

The  Palatine  earldoms .  169 

The  difference  between  English  and 
French  feudalism,  the  result  of  his 

policy .  1 70-1 74 

III.  William  and  the  Church .  175 

Importance  of  ecclesiastical  history  in 

early  times .  175 

Degraded  condition  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 

Church .  175 

Scheme  of  Gregory  VII .  177-179 

William’s  ecclesiastical  policy.  He  re¬ 
forms  the  Church,  increases  its 
power,  and  makes  it  a  balance  to  the 

barons .  1 79 

But  refuses  homage  to  the  Pope,  and 

claims  to  rule  the  national  Church.  .  181 

Results  of  his  policy .  182 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

END  OF  REIGN  OF  WILLIAM  I.  IO73-I087. 

1073.  Maine  revolts  and  appeals  to  Fulk  of 
Anjou.  Invasion  of  Maine  and  trea¬ 
ty  of  Blanchelande.  Robert,  Count  of 
Maine .  184 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES. 


The  standard  English  Authorities  for  the  period  are  : — 

Freeman,  ‘‘The  Norman  Conquest  of  England.” 

Gibbon,  “  Decline  and  Fall.” 

Lappenberg,  ‘‘ Anglo-Saxon  and  Norman  Kings.” 

Milman,  “  Latin  Christianity.” 

Stubbs,  “Constitutional  History  and  Documents  Illustrative  of 
English  History.” 

Palgrave,  Sir  Francis,  (i.)  ‘‘England  and  Normandy;”  (2.) 

“  English  Commonwealth.” 

The  following  will  also  be  found  useful  : — 

For  Chapter  I. 

Dasent,  “  Norsemen  in  Iceland,”  Oxford  Essays,  1858. 

Keyser,  “Private  Life  of  Northmen;”  “Religion  of  North¬ 
men.” 

Laing,  “  Sea  Kings  of  Norway.” 

Maurer,  Konrad,  (1.)  “  Beitrage  rur  Rechtsgeschichte  des 
Germanischen  Nordens.” 

Maurer,  G.  L.,  “  Einleitung,  Markenverfassung  Dorfverfas- 
sung.” 


Chapter  II. 

Burton,  “  History  of  Scotland.” 

Dasent,  “Jest  and  Earnest;”  “The  Vikings  of  the  Baltic.” 
Maurer,  Konrad,  “Island.” 

Leveque,  “  Histoire  de  Russie.” 


XX 


List  of  Authorities. 


Ralston,  “  Lectures  on  Early  History  of  Russia™'* 

Robertson,  Scotland  under  her  Early  Kings.” 

Skene,  ‘‘  Highlands  of  Scotland.” 

Chapter  VI. 

Amari,  “  Storia  dei  Mussulmani  di  Sicilia,”  (Florence). 
Gianone,  ‘‘  History  of  the  Kingdom  of  Naples,”  (translated). 
Lalumia,  “  Storia  di  Sicilia  sotto  Gulielmo  il  Buono,”  (Flo¬ 
rence). 

Gregorio,  Rosario,  “  Considerazione  sulla  Storia  di  Sicilia,” 
(Palermo). 


Chapter  IX. 

Brunner,  ‘‘  Entstehung  der  Schwurgerichte.” 

Coulanges,  Fustel  de.  “La  Feudalite.” 

“  Gottinsche  Gelehrte  Anzeigen  :  Nachrichten.” 

Roth,  ( I.)  “  Geschichte  des  Beneficial  Wesens;”  (2  )  “  Feu- 
dalitat  und  Underthanverband.” 

Sohm,  “  Alt-deutsche  Reichs  und  Gerichtsverfassung.” 
Stapleton,  ‘‘Introduction  to  Rotuli  Curix  Normannix.” 

Waitz,  “  Deutsche  Verfassung  Gsschichte.” 


THE 


NORMANS  IN  EUROPE. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  NORTHMEN  IN  THEIR  HOME. 

If  we  would  thoroughly  appreciate  the  importance  of 
the  Northmen  and  their  influence  on  Europe,  we  must 
realize  the  wide  extent  of  their  conquests 
and  settlements.  To  treat  of  the  conquest  the  seuie- 
of  England  by  the  Normans  as  an  isolated  Northmen*16 
event  would  be  entirely  to  obscure  its  real 
meaning  and  effect ;  and  this  is  equally  true  of  the  other 
settlements  of  the  Northmen. 

Leaving  their  Northern  homes  in  the  ninth  century, 
they  had  by  the  end  of  the  twelfth  penetrated  into  nearly 
every  country  of  Europe.  So  close  were  their  political 
and  family  relations  with  all  the  countries  of  the  West, 
from  Iceland  to  Constantinople,  from  Russia  to  Spain, 
during  the  tenth,  eleventh,  and  twelfth  centuries,  that  a 
history  of  the  Northmen  is  little  short  of  a  history  of 
Europe  during  those  ages.  The  great  Exodus  of  the 


2 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  I). 


Scandinavian  peoples  which  began  in  the  ninth  century, 
must  accordingly  be  treated  as  a  whole — and  such  will 
be  the  object  of  this  book. 

Again,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  three  Northern 
countries  of  Denmark,  Norway,  and  Sweden  all  shared 
in  the  general  movement,  and  that  the  expeditions  were 
often  joined  indiscriminately  by  Dane  and  Swede  and 
Norseman. 

It  will  be  well,  therefore,  to  direct  our  attention  in  the 
„„  ..  ,  first  instance  to  these  three  countries,  and 

The  North-  . 

men  in  obtain  as  accurate  a  knowledge  of  the  con- 

their  home.  djtion  0f  the  Northmen  in  their  home  as  is 
possible  from  the  scanty  evidence  which  exists. 

Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Norway  were,  in  the  eighth 
century,  inhabited  by  a  people  called  the  “Northmen." 
a  name  universally  used  to  describe  the  inhabitants  of 
the  Scandinavian  continents. 

These  Northmen  were,  there  is  little  doubt,  closely 
akin  to  the  Jutes,  Angles,  and  Saxons,  who  had  left  their 
homes  on  the  shores  of  the  German  Ocean  some  five 
centuries  before  for  England, — branches  therefore  of  the 
great  Teutonic  family  of  the  Indo-European  or  Aryan 
race,  which,  coming  originally  from  the  East,  broke  in 
upon  the  Roman  Empire,  and  overwhelmed  the  earlier 
Keltic  or  Finnish  tribes  rha  preceded  them. 

That  this  people  should  nave  turned  north  rather  than 
south,  that  they  should  have  occupied  the  inhospitable 
regions  of  the  Scandinavian  continents  in 
preference  to  the  more  accessible  lands  to 
the  south  of  them,  may,  at  first,  appear 
extraordinary.  But,  apart  from  the  proba¬ 
bility  that  they  were  forced  northwards  by 
the  pressure  ensuing  on  the  general  migration  of  the 
Gothic  races  and  their  conflict  with  the  Roman  Empire, 


Reason  for 
their  settle¬ 
ment  in 
Denmark, 
Norway, 
and  Sweden. 


700-800.  The  Northmen  in  their  Home. 


3 


the  fact  is  not  hard  to  explain  on  other  grounds.  These 
continents,  Norway,  Sweden,  and  Denmark,  with  all 
their  apparent  savageness,  offered  to  a  people  of  hunters 
better  opportunities  for  supporting  life,  than  the  trackless 
forests  of  Germany.  The  land  abounded  in  animals 
which  could  be  more  easily  captured  in  the  broken 
country  of  the  North  than  in  the  dense  forests  and  wide 
plains  of  Germany.  The  rivers  and  fiords  teemed  with 
fish  and  wild-fowl ;  fossil  belemnite  and  other  stones 
used  for  weapons  in  an  early  state  of  society,  are  said  to 
abound  on  the  Norwegian  coast ;  and  Sweden  was 
singularly  rich  in  iron  and  copper  ore,  which  lay  very 
near  the  surface.  Everything,  in  fact,  required  by 
people  in  an  early  state  of  civilization  was  to  be  found 
there. 

Of  the  condition  of  the  Northmen  at  the  time  of  their 
first  settlement  we  can  assert  nothing.  We  do  not  know 
whether  they  had  already  passed  out  of  the  „  .  , 

_  .  1  ,  ,  Social  and 

hunting  stage  and  become  a  pastoral  people,  political 
nor  can  we  mark  the  date  at  which  this  con¬ 
dition  was  abandoned  for  the  more  fixed  one  which 
marks  the  rise  of  the  agricultural  system.  The  analogy 
of  all  other  tribes  of  which  we  have  any  historical  evi¬ 
dence  would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  they  had,  at  some 
time,  passed  through  these  stages.  But,  when  we  first 
meet  with  them,  they  had  certainly  become  an  agricul¬ 
tural  people,  and  dwelt  in  settled  homes. 

The  origin  of  society  amongst  the  Northmen,  in  com¬ 
mon  with  the  rest  of  the  Germanic  peoples,  is  probably 
to  be  sought  in  the  “  village  community,”  an 
association  founded  on  the  real  or  fictitious  The  Mark 

System. 

tie  of  the  family.  According  to  this  system, 
the  district  occupied  by  each  community  was  the  com¬ 
mon  possession  of  the  family  or  tribe,  in  whom  the 


4 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


absolute  ownership  resided,  and  was  divided  into  three 
parts:  the  village,  the  arable  “land,”  and  the  common 
pasture.  In  the  village,  each  of  the  tribal  members  had 
his  homestead.  Of  the  arable  lands  he  had  a  right  to  a 
share,  but  he  had  to  follow  the  prescribed  rotation  in  his 
crops,  and,  when  it  was  to  he  fallow,  changed  his  plot 
for  another.  On  the  pasture  lands  he  might  turn  out  his 
cattle,  and  cut  his  fire-wood,  and  when  they  were  taken 
up  for  hay,  each  marksman  would  have  his  hay  field. 
Thus  the  tribes-man  was  the  tenant  rather  than  the 
owner,  and  individual  proprietorship,  as  we  have  it,  was 
unknown.  Each  village  community  would  have  its 
assembly,  in  which  every  free  marksman  enjoyed  a  right 
to  sit,  and  here  the  petty  laws  which  regulated  the  self- 
governing  body  would  be  passed. 

This  state  of  things,  however,  soon  passed  away.  The 
improvement  of  agriculture  led  to  the  desire  of  a  more 
permanent  system  of  allotment,  and  with 
personal  the  rise  of  separate  ownership,  inequality  of 

ownership.  estate  grew  up.  Thus,  by  the  eighth  century, 
the  mark  system  had,  partially,  at  least,  disappeared. 

Here,  again,  we  are  surrounded  with  difficulties  aris¬ 
ing  from  want  of  evidence.  The  Sagas  are  our  only 
authority.  Of  these  there  exist  two  compila- 

The  Sagas  ,  .  ,  ,  1 

cur  only  tions,  both  of  comparatively  late  date.  i. 

The  elder  Edda,  a  collection  of  the  Sagas 
(lays),  handed  down  from  heathen  times,  and  compiled 
about  logo  by  a  Christian  priest  of  Iceland,  Saemund 
Sigfusson  by  name.  2.  The  younger  Edda,  a  prose 
mythology,  written  in  the  thirteenth  century  by,  or  under 
the  direction  of,  Snorro  Sturleson,  another  Icelander  of 
noble  family  In  this,  the  old  traditions  gathered  from 
the  elder  Edda  and  other  Sagas,  now  lost,  are  strung 
together  and  given  with  matchless  simplicity  and  pathos. 


700-800.  The  Northmen  in  their  Home. 


Social 

classes. 


Though,  then,  we  cannot  be  sure  as  to  the  exact  date 
of  the  Sagas  themselves,  they  most  probably  belong  to 
the  period  anterior  to  the  movement  of  the  Scandinavian 
people,  and  contain  the  traditions  of  the  earlier  condition 
of  their  ancestors.  The  following  description  of  Scandi¬ 
navian  society  is  that  which  has  impressed 
itself  upon  the  scalds  or  rhymers.  They 
speak  of  society  as  divided  into  two  classes. 

1.  The  unfree — This  class,  arising  after  the  mark  system 
had  died  out  and  the  land  had  been  to  some  extent 
divided,  enjoyed  personal  freedom,  but  no  civil  rights. 
They  did  not  hold  land,  nor  were  they  entitled  to  sit  in 
the  local  assemblies.  They  formed  a  body  of  labourers, 
and  were  in  many  cases  the  personal  followers  of  those 
above  them.  2.  The  odal  proprietors,  or  yeomen, 
formed  a  numerous  body  of  small  landowners,  and  were 
the  only  aristocracy.  These  were  the  original  members 
of  the  old  village  community,  who  had  established  their 
right  of  individual  ownership.  They  held  their  land  in 
absolute  proprietorship,  and  owed  no  taxes  or  dues  to 
the  Government  beyond  the  bare  necessity  of  contribu¬ 
ting  to  the  defence  of  their  country.  Any  land  yet  un¬ 
divided  remained  the  common  property  of  the  tribe, 
and  was  “leased”  out  to  these  odal  proprietors  on 
varying  terms  of  tenure. 

The  political  organization  was  based  upon  the  mark 
system,  which  here  left  more  enduring  traces.  Each 
village  formed  a  separate  community  with 
its  village  assembly,  in  which  the  odal  pro¬ 
prietor,  or  yeoman,  enjoyed  an  inalienable 
right  of  sitting.  Summoned  to  these  “  Things,”  as  they 
were  called,  by  a  “Bod,”  or  stick,  which  village  com- 
was  passed  from  house  to  house,  they  there  munities. 
in  concert  managed  the  affairs  of  the  district. 


Political  or¬ 
ganization. 


6 


The  Norma?is  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Each  village  had  its  village  thing,  and  head-man,  and 
enjoyed  considerable  independence.  A  number  of  vil¬ 
lage  communities  formed  a  small  tribal 
Villages  and  State,  with  its  own  petty  king  and  assem- 
bly,  larger  than  the  village  “  thing.’’ 

The  assemblies  of  the  states  and  villages  enjoyed  to¬ 
gether  a  supreme  legislative,  judicial,  and  administrative 
authority,  the  greater  “  things’’  assuming  the  legislative 
and  judicial,  the  lesser,  the  administrative  functions 
within  their  respective  spheres.  So  that  the  village 
“  thing  ”  would  be  bound  to  carry  out  the  laws  made,  or 
the  sentences  passed,  by  the  assembly,  or  "  thing,’’  of 
the  state,  just  as  an  English  Town  Council  is  bound  to 
carry  out  the  provisions  of  an  Act  of  Parliament  at  the 
present  day,  while  the  village  *•  thing”  would  have 
smaller  matters  under  its  own  control  just  as  the  Town 
Council  has.  Lastly,  these  states  were  sometimes,  though 
not  necessarily,  loosely  united  in  a  semi-federal  union. 

The  kings  of  the  tribal  states  were  generally  taken 
from  a  noble  family,  sometimes  representing  the  kingly 
line  in  virtue  of  a  supposed  descent  from  Odin.  Their 
office  was  in  many  cases  partly  hereditary,  though  pro¬ 
bably,  as  with  the  Anglo-Saxons,  elective  within  the 
limits  of  the  privileged  family.  Their  power  was  bal¬ 
anced  by  the  assemblies  of  the  state  and  village,  without 
the  concurrence  of  which  they  could  perform  no  impor¬ 
tant  act.  Still,  the  king  was  not  a  mere  nonenity.  He 
presided  in  the  assemblies  and  over  the  administration 
of  justice;  he  officiated  in  the  sacrificial  feasts,  led  the 
host  to  war,  and,  as  in  all  early  societies,  the  personal 
influence  of  a  powerful  king  would  extend.his  authority 
far  beyond  its  theoretical  limits. 

Feudal  aristocracy  there  was  none.  The  proud  North¬ 
ern  yeoman  would  brook  no  superior,  and  the  physical 


700-800.  The  Northmen  in  their  Home. 


7 


and  historical  circumstances  of  their  country  AWnce  t 
prevented  the  growth  of  any  such  caste.  feudal  aris- 
The  comparative  barrenness  of  the  soil-small  tocra‘  5 ' 
pasture  lands  cooped  in  on  all  sides  by  rugged  rocks, 
and  separated  by  deep  fords — could  not  afford  sufficient 
produce  to  furnish  a  rent  to  a  great  lord  over  and  above 
the  sustenance  required  by  the  occupier  of  the  soil,  while 
the  isolation  of  these  fertile  spots  fostered  the  indepen¬ 
dence  of  each  family.  The  hard  primary  rocks  of  the 
Scandinavian  continents  were  unfit  for  building  purpo¬ 
ses,  and  no  baron’s  castle  rose  to  overawe  the  neighbour¬ 
hood.  Kings  and  people  alike  dwelt  in  wooden  houses, 
which  could  be  easily  stormed  and  burnt. 

The  physical  peculiarities  of  the  country  were  aided 
by  other  circumstances.  The  absence  of  the  law  of  pri¬ 
mogeniture  hindered  the  accumulation  of  large  proper¬ 
ties  in  one  hand.  At  a  later  date  the  surplus  population 
was  drawn  off  by  successive  colonizations,  while  the 
levelling  influence  of  war  was  not  wanting  to  call  forth 
individual  merit,  and  to  beat  down  the  exclusive  privi¬ 
leges  of  any  one  class.  In  the  absence  of  writing,  no 
learned  class  monopolized  the  management  of  state  and 
village  affairs,  or  pursued  their  studies  in  a  literary  lan¬ 
guage  unknown  to  the  lower  classes,  as  was  the  case 
among  the  Anglo-Saxons  in  England,  where  the  church¬ 
men  often  wrote  in  Latin. 

As  in  all  early  societies,  the  prosecution  of  offenders 
was  left  to  the  individual  or  to  his  kith  and  kin.  Pecu¬ 
niary  compensations  were  resorted  to  in  all 
cases,  the  state  merely  assessing  the  sum  ;  Criminal 
but  in  the  case  of  greater  offenses,  the 
blood-fine  might  be  refused  when  it  was  deemed  dishon¬ 
ourable  to  the  kith  of  the  injured  man  if  his  death  or 
wrong  were  not  revenged.  This  rough  and  ready  system 


A.  D. 


8  The  Normans  in  Europe. 

of  justice  explains  many  of  the  bloody  struggles  of  those 
times. 

For  the  mythology  of  the  Scandinavians,  we  must 
again  turn  to  the  elder  and  the  younger  Eddas.  And 
this  is  what  we  there  learn.  In  the  begin- 
Mythology.  njng  of  time,  when  yet  there  was  naught, 
two  regions  lay  on  each  side  of  chaos.  To  the  north 
Niflheim,  the  abode  of  mist  and  snow  and  cloud  and 
cold.  To  the  south,  Muspell,  where  it  is  so  hot  and 
bright  that  it  burns,  and  none  may  tread  save  those  who 
have  an  heritage  there.  The  king  of  that  land  is  Surtr, 
who  guards  the  land  with  a  flaming  sword.  When  the 
hot  blasts  from  Muspell  met  the  cold  rime  and  frost  that 
came  out  of  Niflheim,  the  frost  melted  by  the  might  of 
Surtr,  and  became  a  great  giant,  Ymir,  the  sire  of  all  the 
frost  giants.  But,  besides  the  giant,  the  ice-drops  as 
they  melted  formed  a  cow,  on  whose  milk  Ymir  fed; 
and  as  she  licked  the  stones  covered  with  rime  a  man 
named  Buri  arose,  who  was  the  father  of  Odin  and  his 
brethren.  These  are  the  Aisir,  or  good  gods,  and  be¬ 
tween  these  and  the  frost  giants  war  arose,  till  at  last 
Ymir  was  slain  and  all  his  race  but  one.  From  this  one 
the  later  race  of  frost  giants  sprang. 

With  the  body  of  the  giant  Odin  made  the  world.  The 
sea  and  waters  are  his  blood  ;  earth  his  flesh  :  the  rocks 
his  bones  ;  pebbles  his  teeth  and  jaws.  His  skull  was 
raised  aloft  and  the  heavens  were  made  of  it.  The 
clouds  are  his  brains.  But  the  sun  and  moon  and  stars 
are  formed  of  the  fires  which  came  out  of  Muspell. 
These  Odin  fixed  in  the  heavens,  and  ordered  their 
goings.  Odin,  the  father  of  all  ( Allfadir ),  next  made 
man,  and  gave  him  a  soul  which  shall  never  perish, 
though  the  body  shall  decay. 

Odin  was  the  greatest  of  the  gods.  Next  to  him  comes 


8oo. 


The  Northmen  in  their  Home. 


9 


Frigga,  his  wife,  who  knows  the  fate  of  all  men,  though 
she  never  reveals  it.  Then  Thor,  his  first-born  son — 
the  Thunderer,  the  chiefest  of  gods  for  strength,  the 
sworn  foe  of  the  old  frost  giants,  the  tamer  and  queller 
of  all  unholy  things. 

Next  Baldr,  of  fairest  face  and  hair,  the  mildest-spo¬ 
ken  of  the  gods,  the  type  of  purity  and  innocence. 

These,  with  Freyr,  who  rules  over  rain  and  sunshine 
and  the  fruitfulness  of  the  earth  ;  and  Freyia,  the  god¬ 
dess  of  love ;  and  many  others,  live  in  Midgard,  the 
centre  of  the  earth.  Here  they  built  themselves  a  castle, 
Asgard,  high  above  the  earth  ;  whence  they  can  see  all 
that  goes  on  among  mortals.  Here  the  good  shall  live 
with  Odin  after  death — while  the  wicked  shall  go  to 
Niflheim  (hell),  the  place  of  darkness  and  of  cold. 

But  these  simple  myths  were  mingled  with  those  of  a 
more  savage  and  sterner  character. 

Odin  is  not  The  All-father  alone,  but  the  God  of  battle 
(  Valfadir )  as  well ;  and  as  such  is  worshipped  by  bloody 
sacrifices.  Instead  of  the  peaceful  after-life  in  Midgard, 
men  look  forward  to  Valhalla,  where  those  who  die  in 
battle  shall  feast  with  Odin.  There  their 
pastime  shall  be  to  fight  with  each  other  Change  in 

,  ,  .  the  Religion. 

from  dawn  till  meal-time,  when  they  ride 
back  to  Valhalla  and  sit  down  to  drink.  Those  who  die  of 
sickness  or  old  age  shall  go  to  hell ;  the  murderers,  and 
those  who  forswear  themselves,  to  Na— a  region  formed 
of  adders’  backs  wattled  together,  whose  heads  spit  venom 
and  form  streams  in  which  these  shall  wade  for  ever. 

Meanwhile  among  the  gods  there  is  strife  and  woe. 
Of  the  children  of  the  old  frost  giants,  one  Loki  had 
been  fostered  by  Odin,  and  brought  up  among  his  child¬ 
ren,  to  their  ruin.  Fair  of  face  is  he,  but  a  traitor, 
ill-tempered,  deceitful,  and  of  fickle  mood. 


IO 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


With  the  rise  of  the  traitor  the  golden  age  of  the 
/Esir,  or  good  gods,  is  at  an  end,  and  the  old  quarrels 
between  them  and  the  frost  giants  begin  again.  Yet  so 
long  as  Baldr  lived,  sin  and  wickedness  could  not  pre¬ 
vail  on  earth,  nor  could  the  ancient  giant  race  triumph 
over  the  yEsir.  To  kill  Baldr,  therefore,  was  Loki's 
constant  aim,  and  by  treachery  he  succeeded.  The  gods, 
warned  by  the  soothsayers  that  Baldr  was  doomed  to  die, 
made  him  free  from  death  by  sickness,  or  stones,  or  trees, 
or  beast,  or  bird;  and,  rejoicing  in  their  triumph,  found 
harmless  pastime  in  shooting  at  Baldr  and  smiting  him 
with  stones,  while  he  remained  unharmed.  One  tree,  the 
mistletoe,  they  had  not  named,  and  Loki,  making  arrows 
of  it,  gave  them  into  the  hands  of  Hodr,  the  blind  god. 
Armed  with  these  weapons,  he  joined  with  his  brethren  in 
the  sport,  and  shooting,  slew  fair  Baldr,  who  went  to  hell. 
Loki,  indeed,  fell  before  the  vengeance  of  Thor,  but 
the  doom  of  the  gods  was  sealed ;  and,  heralded  by 
three  winters  with  no  summers  in  between,  "the  twilight 
of  the  gods’’  drew  on.  Then-  Surtr,  the  primeval  god, 
should  at  last  come  forth,  and  hurling  fire  over  the 
'  world,  destroy  the  gods  both  good  and  bad.  Then 
should  arise  another  heaven,  where  the  worthy  dead 
should  dwell  with  Surtr,  and  Baldr  should  thither  return 
from  hell. 

Priests  there  were  none :  the  king  of  the  tribe  or 
village  took  their  place,  and,  on  the  great  festivals  of  the 
year,  led  the  assembled  men  of  the  district  in  their  reli¬ 
gious  ceremonies,  and  in  the  public  business  of  the  State, 
with  which  the  festal  days  were  closed. 

Such,  as  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  scanty  evidence 
that  we  have,  was  the  condition  of  the  Northmen  in  the 
eighth  contury. 

At  the  end  of  the  eighth  century  the  homely,  simple 


8oo. 


The  Northmen  in  their  Home. 


XI 


character  of  their  life  was  disturbed.  The  Sagas  clearly 
speak  of  a  severe  convulsion  of  society  ;  and,  though  we 
cannot  trust  these  later  authorities  in  their 
details,  they  were  probably  correct  as  to  facts.  Change  in 
The  ill-defined  relations  of  the  several  petty  character  of 
states,  to  one  another  and  to  the  village  dis-  End^feighth 
tricts  of  which  they  were  composed,  pre-  century, 
vented  a  stable  system,  and  offered  to  ambi¬ 
tious  chiefs  tempting  opportunities  for  aggression,  whilst 
the  barrenness  of  the  soil  was  unable  to  supply  the 
growing  wants  of  a  rapidly  increasing  population.  Hence 
the  rise  of  petty  struggles  which  rapidly  became  universal, 
and  distracted  the  land  with  civil  discord.  The  more 
fortunate  chieftains  established  their  authority ;  the  less 
fortunate,  scorning  to  accept  the  position  of  dependents, 
took  to  the  sea,  their  natural  refuge,  and,  collecting  the 
turbulent  spirits  round  them,  sought  in  a  life  of  piracy 
the  sustenance  denied  them  in  their  home.  It  was  now 
that  Europe  first  began  to  hear  the  name  of 

i  i  .  .  ...  ,  .  ,  First  inroads 

the  dread  Vikings  (  Vic,  a  bay  or  fiord),  and  of  the  North- 

to  suffer  from  their  piratical  inroads.  In  men‘ 

England  the  Danes  appear,  and  threaten  her  rising 

unity.  Abroad,  the  Northmen  hasten  to  avenge  the 

conquests  of  the  Saxons  by  the  Emperor  of  the  West, 

and  Charles  the  Great  wept  to  see  the  long  boats  of  these, 

the  deadly  foes  of  his  empire  and  his  race,  as  they  swept 

the  Mediterranean. 

Meanwhile  at  home  the  successful  chieftains,  relieved 
in  part  of  their  more  independent  adversaries,  were  en¬ 
abled,  though  by  severe  struggles,  gradually  to  continued 
consolidate  their  power.  Many  modifications  changes  at 
were  introduced  into  the  social  and  political  home' 
condition  of  the  people.  Slavery  increased,  social  equa¬ 
lity  was  broken  through,  royalty  throve  at  the  expense 


12 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


of  individual  liberty  :  piracy  was  now  considered  an 
honourable  pursuit :  the  character  of  the  people  was 
affected.  Surrounded  by  daily  warfare,  they  caught  the 
spirit  of  the  times  and  became  more  warlike. 

These  petty  struggles,  with  their  attendant  results,  oc¬ 
cupy  the  history  of  the  northern  kingdoms  until,  towards 
the  latter  half  of  the  ninth  century,  they  are  replaced 
by  more  systematic  attempts  at  organization. 

Within  a  few  years  of  each  other,  three  men  arose  in 
the  several  kingdoms  of  Denmark,  Norway,  and  Swe¬ 
den — Gorm  the  Old,  Harald  Harfagr,  and  Eric — who 
attempted  to  overthrow  the  independent  chieftains,  and 
to  establish  their  own  undisputed  authority.  Of  these  the 
history  of  Harald  Harfagr,  of  Norway,  may  be  taken  as 
Reigns  fH  a  lyPe-  The  son  °f  a  petty  prince  in  the 

aid  Harfagr,  south  of  Norway,  he  had  sought  a  bride 
Gorm  the  Old,  -  .  r  .  ,  ,  .  .  .  r  . 

Eric  (middle  of  from  the  court  of  a  neighbouring  chieftain. 

yih  century).  The  maiden  returned  the  contemptuous  an¬ 
swer  that  she  would  not  throw  herself  away  on  a  king 
who  had  but  a  few  districts  for  a  kingdom,  and  added 
the  taunt  that  it  was  strange  no  prince  in  Norway  could 
make  the  whole  country  subject  to  him  as  Gorm  the 
Old  had  done  in  Denmark,  and  Eric  at  Upsal.  Incited 
by  this  spirited  reply,  Harald  swore  a  solemn  vow  never 
to  clip  or  comb  his  hair  until  he  had  subdued  the  whole 
of  Norway,  or  to  die  in  the  attempt;  “and  forthwith,” 
says  the  Saga,  “  he  devoted  his  life  to  this  great  aim.'’ 
His  object  was  not  gained  without  a  struggle.  The  petty 
chieftains,  united  by  their  common  danger,  fought  des¬ 
perately  and  long;  but  Harald,  aided  by  his  own  per¬ 
sonal  ability,  and  fortunately  served  by  some  of  the  best 
swords  of  the  day,  defeated  them  in  a  succession  of 
severe  encounters,  and  thus  fulfilling  his  vow,  gained 
his  kingdom  and  his  bride. 


8oo. 


The  Northmen  in  their  Home. 


Of  the  petty  chieftains,  many  had  fallen  in  battle, 
scorning  to  live  on  in  disgrace  ;  a  few  became  his  de¬ 
pendents,  and  ruled  their  once  independent  possessions 
as  his  vice-regents.  Most  left  their  native  shores,  and 
sought  in  other  lands  the  power  they  had  lost  at  home. 
The  movement  thus  began  was  furthered  by  the  means 
resorted  to  by  Harald  in  organizing  his  newly-won  do¬ 
main.  In  the  preceding  times,  the  Vikings  Effect  of  in 
had  not  confined  their  piratical  incursions  creased  or. 
to  foreign  lands  ;  they  had  plundered  their  B 
own  country  as  well,  and  preyed  on  kith  and  kin.  Now, 
Harald  adopted  vigorous  measures  to  put  down  this  pi¬ 
racy  ;  the  turbulent  spirits,  driven  from  their  own  shores, 
swelled  the  forces  of  the  exiled  chieftains.  His  measures 
affected  also  the  peaceful  proprietors  who  had  hitherto 
stayed  at  home.  The  expenses  of  government  neces¬ 
sarily  increasing  with  its  centralization,  he  was  forced  to 
raise  money.  This  he  did,  not  only  by  appropriating  the 
common  lands  hitherto  the  undivided  property  of  the  col¬ 
lective  tribe,  and  by  transferring  all  taxes  and  fines  paid 
into  the  common  treasury  of  the  tribe  or  to  the  chief¬ 
tain,  to  the  royal  coffers,  but  also  by  imposing  taxes  on 
those  who,  till  then,  had  held  their  land  in  full  and  free 
ownership.  Irritated  at  this  loss  of  their  freedom,  and 
m  some  cases  perhaps  unable  to  wring  sufficient  pro¬ 
duce  from  the  sterile  soil,  many  of  these,  the  back-bone 
of  the  Northern  people,  joined  the  other  discontented 
spirits,  and  furnished  an  element  of  stability  and  organiza¬ 
tion  hitherto  unknown  in  the  expeditions  of  the  Vikings. 

Then  a  movement,  as  yet  unheard  of,  began.  Denmark 
and  Sweden,  subjected  under  Gorm  and  Renewecj  ex0. 
Eric,  probably  experienced  a  similar  con-  Northmen 
vulsion,  and  a  general  exodus  of  the  North¬ 
ern  people  commenced. 

c 


14  The  Normans  in  Europe.  a.  d. 

It  is  material  to  note  the  difference  between  this  later 
movement  and  the  earlier  ones  which  had  preceded  it. 

These  were  little  more  than  marauding  ex- 
featuresU'lar  peditions  for  the  sake  of  plunder.  The 
pirates  sailed  the  seas,  pounced  down  upon 
any  defenceless  point,  harried,  sacked,  and  burnt  the 
place,  and  were  off  again  before  any  resistance  could  be 
organized.  They  had  no  idea  of  forming  any  definite 
settlement,  and  ravaged  the  territories  of  friend  and  foe 
alike.  But  now  all  this  changes.  The  idea  of  definite 
settlement  becomes  apparent.  The  expeditions  are 
joined,  as  we  have  seen,  by  a  different  class — proprietors 
robbed  of  their  land  and  rights  (as  they,  no  doubt, 
deemed  them),  men  to  whom  plunder  for  plundering’s 
sake  was  distasteful,  and  who  were  anxious  to  find  a 
peaceable  home  elsewhere- — these  are  the  class  of  men 
who  now  take  the  lead,  and  organize  the  hitherto  aim¬ 
less  ravages  of  their  countrymen.  Hence  it  is  that  the 
invasions  of  the  Northmen,  always  ushered  in  by  plun¬ 
dering  excursions,  about  this  time  change  their  character, 
and  take  the  form  of  permanent  settlements.  Thus  in 
England,  the  Danish  invasions,  which  had  been  going 
on  since  787,  assumed  a  new  form  in  855,  and  the  country 
was  finally  divided  between  Alfred  and  the  Danes  in 
878.  In  France  the  interest  is  seen  to  centre  round 
fewer  leaders,  who  are  evidently  aiming  at  settlement, 
and  already  the  Seine  has  become  the  favourite  scene 
of  action  ;  while  the  Orkneys,  Shetlands,  Faroe  Islands, 
Iceland,  Russia  now  probably  receive  their  new  colo¬ 
nists. 


78  7—9 1 2-  Th*  Invasions  of  the  Northmen. 


15 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  INVASIONS  OF  THE  NORTHMEN. 

We  have  now  arrived  at  the  point  when  we  must  leave 
the  shores  of  the  northern  continent  and  follow  the  ex¬ 
iles  in  their  several  conquests  and  settlements.  These 
naturally  fall  into  two  periods  : — 

1.  787-855.  During  which  the  invasions  are  little  more 
than  plundering  raids  : 

2.  855-012.  A  period  of  conquest  and  Two  periods 

of  invasion  ; 

definite  settlement.  a.  787-855, 

On  the  earlier  period  we  need  not  long  raidlsd:enng 
dwell.  The  incursions  were  of  necessity  Settlement’ 
only  temporary  in  their  effects,  and  were 
chiefly  confined  to  England,  Germany,  and  France, 
though  Spain  and  even  Italy  were  by  no  means  free 
from  attack. 

Of  these,  the  Danish  invasions  of  England,  the  best 
authenticated  scarcely  come  within  the  scope  of  our 
subject.  Their  attacks  on  Italy  and  Spain, 
though  no  doubt  severe,  led  to  no  permanent 
results  till  a  much  later  date,  while  in  Ger¬ 
many  and  France  their  annals  are  rendered 
irremediably  defective  through  the  insuffi¬ 
ciency  of  contemporary  authorities.  From 
the  death  of  the  chronicler  Nithard,  grandson  of  Charles 
the  Great,  a  Count  of  Ponthieu,  who  fell  fighting  against 
the  Northmen,  and  left  a  fragment  abruptly  ended  by  his 
death,  the  authorities  are  very  scant  and  the  information 
confused.  The  frequent  repetition  of  particular  names, 
running  over  a  period  longer  than  that  generally  covered 
by  the  deeds  of  one  man,  renders  it  probable  that  the 


Scandinavian 
invasions  of 
England, 
Italy, 

Spain, 

Germany, 

France. 


i6 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


terror  of  a  name  lasted  after  the  hero’s  death,  and  led 
the  ecclesiastical  chroniclers,  never  very  well  informed 
of  events  unconnected  with  their  own  district,  to  attribute 
to  one  the  deeds  of  many. 

All  that  we  can  feel  certain  of,  all,  at  least,  which  it  is, 
in  any  way  important  to  remember,  is  the  frequency  and 
enormous  area  of  the  attacks,  and  this  cannot 

Fearful  fre-  . 

quency  of  be  put  in  better  words  than  those  of  Sir  Fran  • 
these  raids.  cjs  paigrave  : — “  Take,"  he  says,  “  the  map, 

and  cover  with  vermilion,  the  provinces,  districts,  and 
shores,  which  the  Northmen  visited,  as  a  record  of  each 
invasion,  the  colouring  will  have  to  be  repeated  more 
than  ninety  times  successively,  before  you  arrive  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  dynasty  of  Charles  the  Great.  Further¬ 
more,  mark  by  the  usual  symbol  of  war,  two  crossed 
swords,  the  localities  where  battles  were  fought  by  the 
pirates,  where  they  were  defeated  or  triumphant,  or 
where  they  pillaged,  burned,  or  destroyed,  and  the  valleys 
and  the  banks  of  the  Elbe,  Rhine  and  Moselle,  Scheldt, 
Meuse,  Somme  and  Seine,  Loire,  Garonne  and  Adour, 
and  all  the  coasts  and  coast-lands  between  estuary  and 
estuary,  all  the  countries  between  river  and  streams  will 
appear  bristling  as  with  chevaux  de  frise.”  This  will 
give  us  some  idea  of  the  invasions  as  far  as  Gaul  and 
Germany  are  concerned ;  but  it  should  be  repeated  for 
England,  Scotland,  and  the  islands  which  surround  their 
coasts,  to  give  any  adequate  conception  of  the  misery 
they  caused. 

Confining,  then,  our  attention  more  particularly  to  the 
second  period,  let  us  briefly  consider  the  appearance 
and  characteristic  qualities  of  these  Northmen. 

The  outward  look  of  the  Norse,  the  Dane,  the  Norse¬ 
man  was  much  the  same.  Broad-shouldered,  deep- 
chested,  long-limbed,  yet  with  slender  waist,  and  small 


85  5— 9 1 2  -  The  Invasions  of  the  Northmen. 


17 


hands  and  feet,  their  figures  told  of  strength  ; 
and  so  necessary  was  strength  considered  °utward m,en- 
that  puny  infants  were  exposed  and  left  to  die,  the 
healthy  children  being  alone  preserved.  Their  com¬ 
plexion — their  hair  and  eyes,  were  fair — and  the  fair  alone 
could  pass  for  beautiful  or  well-born.  A  dark  complexion 
was  considered  the  mark  of  an  alien  race,  and  dishonour¬ 
able.  Thus  Baldr,  the  noblest  of  the  gods,  was  fair,  and 
the  outward  appearance  of  the  slave  was  thus  contrasted 
with  that  of  the  freeman.  Black  and  ugly  they  are. 
Their  forefather,  Thrall,  had  a  broad  face,  bent  back, 
long  heels,  blistered  hands,  stiff,  slow  joints,  and  clumsy 
figure.  His  wife,  Thy,  is  bandy-legged,  flat  nosed,  and 
her  arms  are  brown  with  toiling  in  the  sun.  Their 
children  are  like  them. 

The  ordinary  dress  of  both  sexes  was  nearly  the 
same.  A  shirt,  loose  drawers,  long  hose,  high  shoes 
with  thongs  twisted  up  the  ankle.  A  short  kirtle  girt  at 
the  waist  served  for  coat  or  gown  ;  an 
armless  cloak,  with  a  low-crowned,  broad-  lur 
brimmed  hat,  completed  the  dress  of  the  man.  The 
woman,  instead  of  the  hat,  wore  a  wimple  of  linen,  and 
over  that  a  high  twisted  cap,  sometimes  bent  at  the  top 
into  the  shape  of  a  horn,  but  otherwise  dressed  much  as 
the  men.  The  under-clothing  of  both  sexes  was  of 
linen  ;  their  outer  of  coarse,  woolen  homespun — of  grey, 
or  black,  or  blue,  or  red,  the  most  prized  of  all. 

To  this  the  chiefs  added,  in  the  time  of  war,  a  helm 
and  shirt  of  mail,  and  all  were  armed  with  a  long 
shield,  protecting  the  whole  body — white  in 
time  of  peace,  red  in  time  of  war— covered 
with  leather,  with  iron  rim  and  boss ;  spears  of  ashen 
shaft  and  iron  point ;  axes ;  and,  above  all,  the  sword, 
the  darling  of  the  Northmen. 


Their  arms. 


i8 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Their  ships  were  long,  half-decked  galleys,  propelled 
by  oars  and  sail.  The  waist,  where  the  rowers  sat,  was 
low,  that  the  oars  might  have  free  play. 
1  heir  ships.  bow  ancj  stern  were  high,  and  ended, 

the  former  in  a  beak  or  jaw,  the  latter  in  the  tail  of  some 
beast.  Dragons  were  the  most  commonly  represented, 
and  thus  the  ship  looked  like  a  huge  monster  on  the  sea, 
whose  gaping  jaws  were  held  to  bewitch  the  foe.  The 
sails  were  gay  with  stripes  of  blue  or  green  or  red. 

In  the  prow  stood  the  warriors,  and  the  vessel  was 
driven  stem  on  against  the  enemy :  in  the  stern  the 
chief,  and  behind  him  the  helmsman,  his  helm  inscribed 
with  magic  runes  to  charm  away  all  evil.  In  action  the 
rowers  were  protected  by  planks  set  up  along  the 
bulwarks,  and  all  round  the  vessel  ran  a  gangway,  from 
w  ence  they  boarded  the  enemy’s  ship. 

Hie  character  of  these  hardy  Northmen  was  well 
si  led  to  their  future  destiny. 

The  daily  struggle  for  existence  in  an  inhospitable 
cl  mate  had  taught  them  fearlessness  and  ready  wit  in 
danger.  From  the  absence  of  all  aristocracy 
c 'le^rthmen  or  ot^er  privileged  class  they  had  acquired 
a  spirit  of  independence,  a  haughty  and 
unbending  character  which  prepared  them  for  their 
future  conquests.  Set  face  to  face  with  the  mysteries  of 
nature  and  of  their  self-taught  religion,  they  had  gained 
an  heroic  fancifulness,  a  thoughtful  sternness  which  lit 
up  the  darker  tints.  These  features  were  the  natural 
result  of  the  free  and  independent  life  of  their  fore¬ 
fathers.  To  these  we  must  add  a  cold-blooded  ferocity, 
contracted  in  the  long  civil  disturbances  which  had  torn 
their  country  since  the  end  of  the  eighth  century.  All 
these  are  the  qualities  common  in  early  times  to  success¬ 
ful  conquerors ;  but  as  we  follow  the  history  of  their 


85 5— 9 T  2-  The  Invasions  of  the  Northmen.  19 

settlements,  another  more  important  feature  appears, 

namely,  their  extraordinary  versatility  and 

power  of  adapting  themselves  to  varied  Power ,°f as- 

r  r  0  similation. 

forms  and  states  of  society.  The  Northmen 
never  seem  to  have  been  original,  never  to  have  invented 
anything  ;  rather  they  readily  assumed  the  language, 
religion,  ideas  of  their  adopted  country,  and  soon 
became  absorbed  in  the  society  around  them.  This  will  be 
found  to  be  invariably  the  case,  except  with  regard  to 
Iceland,  where  the  previous  occupation  was  too  insignifi¬ 
cant  to  affect  the  new  settlers.  In  Russia,  they  became 
Russians;  in  France,  Frenchmen;  in  Italy,  Italians;  in 
England  twice  over  Englishmen ;  first  in  the  case  of  the 
Danes;  and  secondly,  in  that  of  the  later  Normans. 
Everywhere  they  became  fused  in  the  surrounding 
nationality.  Their  individuality  is  lost,  and  their  presence 
is  traced  only  in  the  nomenclature  of  the  country,  that 
fossil  remnant  of  denationalized  races,  as  it  has  been 
called.  Not  so  their  influence.  They  fell  on  stirring 
times,  and  in  every  case  they  took  the  lead,  and  deeply 
affected  the  nations  with  which  they  came  in  contact. 
Europe  at  that  date  was  in  a  fluid  state,  and  the  North¬ 
men  seem  to  have  acted  as  a  crystallizing  power ;  to 
have  formed  a  nucleus  round  which  political  society 
might  grow.  In  Iceland  they  formed  a  free  republic,  in 
Russia  they  first  organized  a  kingdom  ;  in  England  they, 
by  their  pressure,  first  consolidated  the  kingdom  of 
Wessex,  then  conquered  it  under  Canute  and  William 
I.;  in  the  West-Frankish  country  they  finally  put  an  end 
to  the  long  struggle  for  supremacy,  sounded  the  death- 
knell  of  the  Karolings  of  Laon,  and  aided  to  form 
modern  France.  Nor  is  this  all ;  they  borrow  everything 
and  make  it  their  own,  and  their  presence  is  chiefly  felt 
in  increased  activity  and  more  rapid  development  of 


20 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


institutions,  literature  and  art.  Thus,  while  they  invent 
nothing,  they  perfect,  they  organize  everything,  and 
everywhere  appear  to  be  the  master-spirits  of  their  age. 

We  have  hitherto  treated  the  Norwegians,  Swedes, 
and  Danes  under  the  common  appellation  of  Northmen  ; 
and  this  is  in  many  ways  the  most  convenient,  for  it  is 
often  impossible  to  decide  the  nationality  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual  settlement.  Indeed,  it  would  appear  probable 
that  the  devastating  bands  were  often  composed  indis¬ 
criminately  of  the  several  nationalities.  Still,  in  tracing 
the  history  of  their  conquests,  we  may  lay  it  down  as  a 
general  rule  that  England  was  the  exclusive  prey  of  the 
Danes;  that  Scotland  and  the  islands  to  the  north  as  far 
as  Iceland,  and  to  the  south  as  far  as  Anglesea  and  Ire¬ 
land,  fell  to  the  Norwegians,  and  Russia  to  the  Swedes; 
while  Gaul  and  Germany  were  equally  the  spoil  of  the 
Norwegians  and  the  Danes.  The  last  will  claim  our 
more  careful  attention.  At  the  former  we  can  only  cast 
a  cursory  glance. 

I.  In  England,  the  Danish  inroads  beginning  about 
the  year  787,  had  assumed  their  second 
phase  about  the  year  855,  and  destroyed 
the  nascent  unity  of  the  kingdom  then  par¬ 
tially  attained  by  Egbert,  king  of  the  West- 
Saxons.  The  Danes  had  easily  occupied 
the  more  northern  kingdoms  of  Northum¬ 
bria,  Mercia,  and  East  Anglia;  peopled  as 
they  were  by  the  Angles,  a  race  more  nearly  akin  to  their 
own  than  the  Saxons,  and  disorganized  by  the  late 
struggles  for  supremacy'.  But  as  they  drew  near  to  the 
more  thoroughly  organized  kingdom  of  Wessex,  the  op¬ 
position  became  more  resolute,  and  the  struggle  more 
severe.  Led  by  their  great  hero,  Alfred,  the  Saxons 
maintained  the  struggle  for  seven  years,  until  the  peace 


Second 
period  of 
Scandi¬ 
navian  con¬ 
quest, 

855-912- 

Danish  con¬ 
quest  of 
England, 
855-878. 


878-958.  The  Invasions  of  the  Northmen. 


21 


Peace  of 

Wedmore, 

878. 


of  Wedmore,  878,  obtained  for  Wessex  a  res¬ 
pite  from  her  harassing  foe.  By  that  peace 
England  was  divided  into  two  nearly  equal 
parts  ;  Alfred  holding  all  south  of  the  Thames,  Lea,  and 
Watling  Street;  that  is  Kent,  Sussex,  Wessex,  and  part 
of  Mercia  ;  while  he  ceded  all  north  of  this  to  the  Danes, 
and  Guthrum,  their  leader,  acknowledging  his  over¬ 
lordship,  embraced  Christianity  as  a  condition  of  the 
peace. 

Thus  England  was  again  divided,  and  her  premature 
attempt  at  unity  to  all  appearance  indefinitely  post¬ 
poned. 

Yet  in  truth  the  loss  was  apparent  rather  than  real. 

By  this  peace  the  limits  between  the  two  people  were 

fixed,  and  the  Danes  no  longer  continued  __ 

0  .  Effect  of 

their  aggressions.  Confined  behind  their  Danish 
self-constituted  boundary,  they  soon  began 
to  amalgamate  with  the  conquered  people.  Their  leader 
having  embraced  Christianity,  they  gradually  followed 
his  example,  and  the  northern  Church,  overthrown  in 
the  earlier  days  of  the  Danish  invasions,  was  speedily 
revived. 

Meanwhile,  although  temporarily  a  loss  to  England, 
the  result  of  the  Scandinavian  invasions  had  been  to 
consolidate  Wessex.  During  the  struggle  she  had  been 
looked  upon  as  the  national  leader  of  the  English,  and 
common  perils  and  victories  had  fused  the  various 
Saxon  tribes  more  completely  than  they  had  ever  been 
before.  The  part  of  Mercia  which  remained  to  Wessex 
became  completely  incorporated  with  her,  while  the 
organization  of  the  country  was  systematized  and  per¬ 
fected  by  the  wise  measures  of  Alfred  and  his  successors. 
When  the  reaction  came,  Wessex  stepped  boldly  forth 
and  encroached  upon  the  Danish  districts.  During  the 


22 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


reigns  of  Alfred’s  powerful  sons  and  grandsons  the  ad¬ 
vance  was  rapid.  The  Danes  themselves  crushed  out 
the  local  independence,  and  the  Saxons  inherited  the 
results  of  their  labours.  When  a  hundred 
years  are  past,  England,  under  Edgar  the 
Peaceful,  came  forth  more  really  united 
than  ever  before.  The  Danes  had  done 
their  work,  perhaps  revived  the  institutions  common  to 
the  North  German  race,  breathed  new  life  into  the  social 
and  political  condition  of  the  country,  and  then,  assimi¬ 
lating  themselves  rapidly  to  the  conquered  people, 
dropped  into  the  common  mass  of  Englishmen.  A  few 
traces  of  their  presence  alone  remained  in  the  modifica¬ 
tion  of  some  official  titles,  in  a  few  privileges  and  laws, 
and  other  local  peculiarities  which  lasted  in  Danelagu 
(the  land  of  Dane  law)  till  the  Norman  conquest,  and  in 
the  nomenclature  of  certain  localities  and  towns. 

II.  While  England  had  been  overcome  by  the  Danes, 
„  the  Norwegians  had  turned  their  attention 

Norwegian 

invasions  of  chiefly  to  the  north  of  the  British  Isles  and 
and  the  the  islands  of  the  West.  Their  settlements 

Isles‘  naturally  fell  into  three  divisions,  which 

tally  with  their  geographical  position,  i.  The  Orkneys 
and  Shetlands,  lying  to  the  N.  E.  of  Scotland.  2.  The 
isles  to  the  west  as  far  south  as  Ireland.  3.  Iceland  and 
the  Faroe  Isles. 

The  Orkneys  and  Shetlands.  Here  the  Northmen 
first  appear  as  early  as  the  end  of  the  eighth  century, 
and  a  few  peaceful  settlements  were  made 

Orkneys  ,  ,  ,  .  r 

and  by  those  who  were  anxious  to  escape  from 

the  noisy  scenes  which  distracted  their 
northern  country.  In  the  reign  of  Harald  Harfagr  they 
assume  new  importance,  and  their  character  is  changed. 
Many  of  those  driven  out  by  Harald  sought  a  refuge 


A.  D.  958. 
Edgar  the 
Peaceful 
king  of  all 
England. 


800-1469-  The  Invasions  of  the  Northmen. 


23 


here,  and  betaking  themselves  to  piracy  periodically  in¬ 
fested  the  Norwegian  coast  in  revenge  lor  their  defeat 
and  expulsion.  These  ravages  seriously  disturbing  the 
peace  of  his  newly  acquired  kingdom,  Harald  fitted  out 
an  expedition  and  devoted  a  whole  summer  to  conquer¬ 
ing  the  Vikings  and  extirpating  the  brood  of  pirates. 
The  country  being  gained,  he  offered  it  to  his  chief  ad¬ 
viser,  Rognwald,  Jarl  of  Mori  in  Norway,  father  of  Rollo 
of  Normandy,  who,  though  refusing  to  go  himself,  held 
it  during  his  life  as  a  family  possession,  and  sent  Sigurd, 
his  brother,  there.  Sigurd,  having  organized  his  king¬ 
dom,  crossed  to  the  mainland  and  overran  Caithness 
and  Sutherland,  then,  in  common  with  the  Orkneys  and 
the  Shetlands,  inhabited  by  the  North  Piets,  a  tribe  of 
Gaelic  extraction.  Sigurd’s  death  was  characteristic  of 
his  life.  While  carrying  the  head  of  a  victim,  Malbrede 
"the  bucktooth’’  swung  at  his  saddlebow,  he  was 
wounded  in  the  leg  by  the  prominent  teeth  of  his  lifeless 
foe,  and  died  from  the  effects.  Although  his  ally,  Thor- 
stein  Olaveson,  gained  Caithness  and  Sutherland,  on  the 
direct  failure  of  his  issue,  authority  was 
again  in  abeyance  and  the  Vikings  again 
commenced  their  ravages.  Rognwald  next 
sent  his  son  Einar,  and  from  his  time  we 
may  date  the  final  establishment  of  the  Jarls  of  Orkney, 
who  henceforth  owe  a  nominal  allegiance  to  the  King 
of  Norway.  In  the  eleventh  century  the  leading  Jarl 
accepted  Christianity  at  the  peremptory  de- 

,  ,  ,  .  ,  1  ,  They  em- 

mand  01  his  sovereign,  and  soon  after  they  brace  Chris- 

finally  conquered  Caithness  and  Sutherland,  t,amty‘ 

and  wrested  a  recognition  of  their  claim  from  Malcolm 

II.  of  Scotland.  Their  influence  was  continually  felt  in 

the  dynastic  and  other  quarrels  of  Scotland ;  the  defeat 

of  Duncan,  in  1040,  by  the  Jarl  of  Orkney,  contributing 


Establish¬ 
ment  of 
Jarls  of 
Orkney. 
875. 


24 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Union  of 
Orkneys 
and  Shet- 
lands  with 
Scotland, 
1469. 


Hebri  des 
and  West 
Coast  of 
Scotland. 


not  a  little  to  Duncan’s  subsequent  overthrow  by  Mac¬ 
beth.  They  fostered  the  independence  of  the  north  of 
Scotland  against  the  southern  king,  and  held  their  king¬ 
dom  until,  in  1355,  it  passed  by  the  female  line  to  the 
house  of  Sinclair.  The  Sinclairs  now  trans¬ 
ferred  their  allegiance  to  their  natural  mas¬ 
ter,  the  King  of  Scotland;  and  finally  the 
kingdom  of  the  Orkneys  was  handed  over 
to  James  III.  as  the  dowry  of  his  bridei 
Margaret  of  Norway. 

III.  The  close  of  the  eighth  century  also  saw  the  com¬ 
mencement  of  the  incursions  of  the  Northmen  in  the 
west  of  Scotland,  and  the  Western  Isles  soon 
became  a  favourite  resort  of  the  Vikings.  In 
the  Keltic  annals  these  unwelcome  visitors 
had  gained  the  name  of  Fingall,  ‘‘the  white 
strangers,”  from  the  fairness  of  their  complexion;  and 
Dugall,  the  black  strangers,  probably  from  the  iron 
coats  of  mail  worn  by  their  chiefs.  From  the  intermix¬ 
ture  of  the  Kelts  and  Northmen  sprang  a  race  called  the 
Gall  Gael,  who  joined  the  Northmen  in  their  raids,  or 
plundered  on  their  own  account.  In  the 
year  795  we  find  them  sacking  the  monas¬ 
tery  of  Iona,  once  the  centre  of  religious 
vitality  in  the  North. 

By  the  end  of  the  ninth  century  a  sort  of  naval  empire 
had  arisen,  consisting  of  the  Hebrides, 
NayaI  parts  of  the  western  coasts  of  Scotland,  es- 

empire  ;  r 

end  of  9th  pecially  the  modern  Argyllshire,  Man,  An- 

glesea,  and  the  eastern  shores  of  Ireland. 

This  empire  was  under  a  line  of  sovereigns  who  called 
themselves  the  Hy-Ivar  (grandsons  of  Ivar),  and  lived 
now  in  Man,  now  in  Dublin.  Thence  they  often  joined 
their  kinsmen  in  their  attacks  on  England,  and  at  times 


Iona 

plundered 

795- 


800-1281.  The  Invasions  of  the  Northmen. 


25 


l,  OOO, 

and  Clon- 
tarf,  1014. 


aspired  to  the  position  of  Jarls  of  the  Danish  Northum¬ 
bria.  It  may  seem  strange  that  a  kingdom  so  widely 
scattered  should  have  held  together  ;  but  the  sea  was 
their  highway,  and  by  it  communication  was  far  easier 
at  that  date  than  by  land.  Moreover,  it  is  probable  that 
the  independence  of  the  several  isles  was  greater  than 
the  scanty  records  which  we  have  allow. 

At  the  close  of  the  tenth  and  beginning  of  the  eleventh 
century  the  battles  of  Tara  and  Clontarf  overthrew  the 
power  of  these  Norsemen  (or  Ostmen  as 
thev  were  called)  in  Ireland,  and  restored  Battles  of 

'  .  .  .  Iara,p8o, 

the  authority  of  the  native  Irish  sovereign. 

About  this  time  they  became  Christians, 
and  in  the  year  1066  we  find  one  of  their  princes  joining 
Harald  Hardrada  of  Norway  in  his  invasion  of  England, 
which  ended  so  disastrously  in  the  battle  of  Stamford 
Bridge-  Magnus  of  Norway,  thirty-two  years  later,  after 
subduing  the  independent  Jarls  of  Shetland  and  the  Ork¬ 
neys,  attempted  to  reassert  his  supremacy  along  the 
western  coast.  But  after  conquering  Anglesea,  whence 
he  drove  out  the  Normans  who  had  just 
made  a  settlement  there,  he  crossed  to  Ire¬ 
land  to  meet  his  death  in, battle.  The  sov¬ 
ereignty  of  the  Isles  was  then  restored  to 
its  original  owners,  but  soon  after  split  into 
two  parts  —  the  Suderies  and  Norderies 
(whence  the  term  Sodor  and  Man),  north  and  south  of 
Ardnamurchan  Point. 

The  next  glimpse  we  have  of  these  dominions  is  at 
the  close  of  the  twelfth  century,  when  we  find  them  un¬ 
der  a  chief  named  Somarled,  who  exercised 
authority  in  the  islands  and  Argyleshire,  fnd’of'the 


Attempts  of 
Magnus  of 
Norway  to 
restore  the 
authority  of 
Norway. 
1098. 


and  from  him  the  clans  of  the  Highlands 
and  the  Western  Isles  love  to  trace  their 


twelfth 

century. 


26 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Battle  of 
Largs, 1263. 
Ceded  to 
Scotland, 
1266. 


ancestry.  After  his  death,  according  to  the  Highland 
traditions,  the  islands  and  Argyleshire  were 
divided  amongst  his  three  sons.  Thus  the 
old  Norse  empire  was  finally  broken  up, 
and  in  the  thirteenth  century,  after  another 
unsuccessful  attempt  by  Haco,  King  of  Norway,  to  re¬ 
establish  the  authority  of  the  mother  kingdom  over  their 
distant  possessions,  an  attempt  which  ended  in  his  de¬ 
feat  at  the  battle  of  Largs  by  the  Scottish  king,  Alexan¬ 
der  III.,  they  were  ceded  to  the  Scottish 
Margaret  °f  kings  by  Magnus  IV.,  his  son,  and  an  alli- 
and  Eric,  ance  was  cemented  between  the  two  king- 

I28l  ° 

doms  by  the  marriage  of  Alexander's 
daughter,  Margaret,  to  Eric  of  Norway. 

IV.  Meanwhile  the  Northmen  had  discovered  Iceland. 
The  first  discoverers  were  a  Viking  named  Naddod,  and 
Gardar,  a  Swede;  and  they,  returning  home, 
Faroe d  praised  the  land.  They  had  climbed  a 

Greenland.  high  fell  on  the  eastern  side  to  see  if  there 
were  any  signs  of  men — but  saw  none.  The  friths,  they 
said,  were  full  of  fish.  In  some  of  the  fields  in  the  sum¬ 
mer-time  butter  dropped  from  every  blade  of  grass.  But 
the  winter  was  cold,  and  towards  the  north  they  had 
seen  frith  after  frith  packed  with  drift  ice.  Hence  they 
called  it  Iceland.  It  was  evidently  a  secluded  place, 
quiet,  and  scarce  trodden  by  the  foot  of  man.  When 
therefore  Harald  Harfagr  had  driven  the  peaceful  pro¬ 
prietors  from  their  home,  by  his  heavy  hand,  and  had 
even  subdued  the  Orkneys  and  the  Shetlands,  those  who 
were  weary  of  these  feuds  sailed  north  to  Iceland  and 
Faroe,  and  sought  rest  in  those  quiet  lands. 
Fi.rst  „  Ingolf  Arnavson  came  first,  in  874,  and 
settled  at  Rykyavik :  and  others  soon  fol¬ 
lowed  him.  Thus  the  colonization  of  Iceland  seems  to 


862-879-  The  Invasions  of  the  Northmen. 


27 


differ  somewhat  from  the  other  settlements  of  the  North¬ 
men. 

The  few  inhabitants  found  there,  probably  Kelts,  did 
not  offer  much  opportunity  for  spoil ;  and  the  least  war¬ 
like  of  the  Northmen  were  attracted  thither.  To  Ice¬ 
land  they  transferred  their  system  of  clan  government, 
which  they  had  enjoyed  in  Norway  before  the  rise  of  the 
domestic  feuds,  and  established  it  with  some  modifica¬ 
tions. 

The  country  was  well  suited  to  such  a  state  of  society, 
cut  up  as  it  is  by  desert  tracts  and  raging  watercourses  ; 
where  each  valley  is  separated  from  the  next  by  lonely 
heaths,  snow-clad  fells,  and  plains  of  barren  lava. 

As  the  number  of  the  colonists  increased,  however, 
changes  were  introduced.  Over  the  district  assemblies 
an  All-thing  was  established.  This,  the 
common  Assembly  for  the  whole  island,  Estabhsh- 
met  in  the  plain  of  the  All-thing,  in  the  All-thing, 

south  of  the  country.  A  code  was  drawn  93 

up,  and  a  Lawman  elected  as  President  of  the  Assembly. 
Here  laws  were  passed,  and  private  suits  eventually 
decided  before  judges  appointed  by  the  Lawman.  If  the 
parties  were  not  satisfied,  a  last  appeal  lay  to  their  trial 
combat.  These  were  fought  on  an  island  in  the  river 
hard  by,  and  were  regulated  by  a  code  of  honour. 

The  executive  was  entrusted  to  a  “  Court  of  Laws" 

( Logretta ),  the  members  of  which  were  the  Lawman 
and  twelve  judges  of  district  courts  or  as¬ 
semblies,  who  were  chieftains  and  priests 
besides.  This  Court  of  Laws,  sitting  in  the 
Hall  of  Laws — declared  the  law,  voted  public  grants, 
elected  the  Lawman,  and  decided  questions  affecting 
the  community  at  large. 

Thus,  practically,  the  government  was  an  aristocratic 


Court  of 
Laws. 


28 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


republic  ;  and  the  real  power  lay  in  the  hands  of  the 
chief  men  of  each  district,  who  alone  could  be  judges, 
the  Lawman,  and'members  of  the  Court  of  Laws, 

Every  freeman  might  indeed  challenge  their  decisions, 
and  by  his  simple  prohibition  render  the  decrees  of  the 
Court  of  Laws  illegal ;  but  by  this  he  was  sure  to  incur  the 
wrath  of  the  powerful  families,  and  the  right  was  not  often 
exercised.  The  power  was,  there  is  no  doubt, virtually  in 
the  hands  of  an  aristocracy  ;  and  the  abolition  of  combat 
on  the  introduction  of  Christianity  in  the  eleventh  cen¬ 
tury,  placed  the  freemen  still  more  in  the  hands  of  the 
judges  and  their  assessors  ;  but  their  condition  was  at 
least  superior  to  that  of  their  class  in  other  countries  at 
that  date ;  individual  freedom  was  but  little  interfered 
with,  and  their  life  seems  to  have  been  prosperous  and 
happy.  It  was  here  that  the  Scandinavian  literature 
was  preserved,  and,  as  before  mentioned,  that  the  elder 
and  younger  Eddas  were  compiled  by  Soemund  Sigfus- 
son  and  Snorro  Sturleson. 

From  Iceland  the  Northmen  discovered  Greenland, 
and  settled  there  in  981.  Perhaps  the  reason  for  this 
may  be  found  in  the  gradual  increase  of 
aristocratic  privilege  in  Iceland.  However 
that  may  be,  a  prosperous  colony  was  estab¬ 
lished  there,  which  lasted  until  the  colonists  were  all 
destroyed  by  the  great  plague  which  swept  over  Europe 
in  the  fourteenth  century  ;  and,  if  the  traditions  be  true, 
some  sailed  thence  and  discovered  Vinland  or  America. 

Meanwhile,  in  Iceland,  the  power  of  the  chieftains  in¬ 
creased,  and — a  sure  sign  of  this— in  the  latter  half  of 
Iceland  occu-  the  twelfth  century  jealousies  sprang  up 
pjexTbykings  between  them.  Then  the  prosperity  of  the 

of  Norway,  .  1  . 

thirteenth  colony  rapidly  declined,  and,  in  the  middle 
of  the  thirteenth  century  it  was  occupied  by 
the  King  of  Norway,  and  the  republic  destroyed. 


Greenland, 

981. 


iooo-io66.  The  Invasions  of  the  Northmen. 


29 


of  kingdom 
of  Russia. 


V.  The  settlement  of  the  Northmen  in  Russia  is  too 
large  a  subject,  and  lies  so  far  out  of  our  Foundation 
way  that  the  briefest  notice  must  suffice. 

While  the  Western  Seas  had  been  the 
scene  of  the  exploits  chiefly  of  the  Danes  and  Norse¬ 
men,  the  Swedes  had  taken  to  the  Baltic,  and  spoiled  or 
levied  tribute  from  the  Sclavonic  tribes  along  the  coast. 

In  the  year  862,  Ruric,  a  Swede,  was 
called  in  by  the  Sclavonic  tribes  to  settle  Russia, 
their  disputes.  “  Our  land  is  large  and 
rich,”  the  suppliants  said,  “but  order  in  it  there  is  none. 
Do  ye  come  and  rule  over  us."  Ruric,  thus  invited, 
came,  and  occupied  Novgorod,  while  his  followers 
settled  at  Kief. 

After  Ruric’s  death,  Oleg,  his  kinsman  and  guardian 
of  his  young  son  Igor,  overcame  the  independent 
princes  of  Kief,  which  henceforth  became 
the  capital  of  Russia.  Here,  rapidly  amal-  ^'phal 

gamating  with  their  subjects,  the  descend¬ 
ants  of  Ruric  long  held  the  title  of  Grand  Prince. 

In  the  tenth  century  they  established  commercial  re¬ 
lations  with  Constantinople.  Sailing  down 
the  Dnieper,  they  reached  the  Euxine  and 
the  Hellespont;  and  in  the  markets  of  Con¬ 
stantinople  exchanged  the  commodities  of 
the  North — furs,  hides,  and  slaves — for  the 
corn,  wine,  and  oil  of  the  sunny  south. 

The  riches  of  the  empire  soon  excited  their  jealousy, 
and  these  friendly  relations  were  exchanged  for  those 
of  enmity.  In  a  period  of  190  years,  the 
Russians  made  four  attempts  to  plunder  the 
Imperial  city,  and  though  eventually  unsuc¬ 
cessful,  were  only  defeated  under  the  very 
walls.  "They  dragged,”  we  are  told,  “ 


Commercial 
relations 
between 
Russia  and 
Constanti¬ 
nople. 


Attacks  on 
Constanti¬ 
nople. 
865-1043. 


1  their  ships 


3° 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Vladimir 
becomes  a 
Christian. 
988. 


ashore,  and  mounting  them  on  wheels  sailed  on  dry 
land  up  to  the  gates.” 

At  the  end  of  the  tenth  century  Vladimir,  the  de¬ 
scendant  of  Oleg  and  then  Grand  Prince  of  Russia, 
married  the  sister  of  the  Eastern  Emperor, 
Basil,  and  became  a  convert  to  Christianity. 
The  Sclavonic  translations  of  the  Scriptures, 
written  by  Cyril  and  Methodius  in  the  ninth 
century,  passed  into  Russia  and  became  the  national 
Bible  of  the  Russians. 

During  the  reign  of  his  descendant  Yaroslaf,  the  con¬ 
nection  between  the  princely  house  of  Rus¬ 
sia  and  the  Scandinavians  of  the  West  was 
close.  St.  Olaf  of  Norway  and  the  Russian 
prince  had  both  married  daughters  of  Olaf, 
King  of  Sweden.  At  his  court  the  saint  had  found  a 
refuge  when  driven  out  by  Canute  of  England ; 


Connection 
between 
Russia  and 
the  West. 


King  Olaf  eastward  over  the  sea 
To  Russia's  monarch  had  to  flee;" 


and  on  Olaf’s  final  defeat  and  death  at  the  battle  of 
Sticklestad,  his  only  son,  Magnus,  found  a 
shelter  at  his  uncle’s  court,  whence  he  re¬ 
turned  to  overthrow  Sweyn,  the  son  of  Canute,  and 
regain  the  throne  of  Norway.  Hither,  too, 
another  fugitive  had  come — Harald  Har 


drada,  the  half-brother  of  St.  Olaf,  who,  though  only  a 
boy  of  fifteen,  had  fought  in  the  battle  of  Sticklestad. 

Since  the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century,  the  Emperors 
of  the  East,  anxious  to  secure  the  assistance  of  these 
stalwart  warriors  of  the  North,  had  enticed  some  of 
them  south  and  formed  them  into  a  body-guard  under 
The  the  name  of  the  Varangians.  (Var,  oath  — 

Guard8*3"  Vaeringjar — fiapayynt).  Bound  by  an  oath 

to  the  Emperor,  and  placed  under  a  strict 


iooo-io66.  The  Invasions  of  the  Northmen. 


31 


military  code,  they  enjoyed  great  privileges.  They  kept 
watch  at  the  door  of  the  imperial  bed-chamber,  and 
lodged  in  the  palace  itself ;  and  at  the  death  of  the  Empe¬ 
ror  had  the  curious  privilege  of  roaming  at  will  through 
the  imperial  treasury  and  carrying  off  what  they  would. 

To  Constantinople  Harald  came,  and,  in 
the  service  of  the  Emperor,  led  the  Varan¬ 
gian  Guard  against  the  Saracens  in  Egypt 
and  Syria,  thus  anticipating  the  future  deeds 
of  the  Normans  in  the  Crusades ,  and  saw 
Greece  and  Italy,  where  he  fought  with  his 
distant  kinsmen  the  Normans,  who  were 
already  settled  in  Italy. 

In  this  service  he  gained  a  wide-spread 
fame  and  amassed  an  enormous  treasure.  Then,  quar¬ 
relling  with  his  master  the  Emperor,  he  went  back  to 
Russia  to  marry  Elizabeth,  the  daughter  of  Yaroslaf. 


Harald 
joins  the 
Varangian 
Guard. 

1032. 

Expeditions 
against 
Saracens 
and  Sicily. 
io33-io4j- 
Returns  to 
Russia. 

1044. 


Thence  he  returned  to  Norway,  to  share  that  king¬ 


dom  with  Magnus  the  Good,  his  nephew,  till 
the  death  of  his  rival  left  him  the  sole  pos¬ 
session  of  the  Norwegian  throne. 

Nineteen  years  afterwards,  as  we  shall 
see,  he  crossed  to  England,  to  claim  that 
kingdom  from  Harold,  the  son  of  Godwine, 
and  to  end  his  strange  life  at  the  battle  of 
Stamford  Bridge. 

Meanwhile  in  Russia  Yaroslaf  had  died, 
to  be  succeeded  by  Ysevold,  and  then  by 
Vladimir  II.,  who  once  more  came  west  for 


Divides 
Norway 
with 
Magnus, 
1047. 
Harald 
Hardrada, 
sole  king  of 
Norway. 

1047. 
Invades 
England 
and  is  killed 
at  Stamford 
Bridge. 

1066. 


a  bride,  and  married  Githa,  the  daughter  of  the  English 
Harold,  Hardrada’s  foe. 


Here  we  must  take  leave  of  Russia,  still  in  the  hands 
of  the  descendants  of  Ruric,  who  were  to  hold  the  crown 
for  yet  five  hundred  years. 


32 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


CHAPTER  III. 


Northmen 
in  Gaul. 


THE  SETTLEMENT  IN  GAUL. 

The  great  event  of  the  ninth  century  is  the  fall  of  the 
ill-cemented  empire  raised  by  Charles  the  Great ;  that 
of  the  tenth,  the  rise  of  the  national  king¬ 
doms  of  Germany,  France,  and  Italy.  In 
these  two  events  the  Northmen  had  their 
share ;  they  rose  with  the  fall  of  the  Karolings,  and 
became  firmly  established  with  the  rise  of  modern 
France. 

Their  invasions,  beginning  about  the  year  799,  ran  very 
much  the  same  course  as  those  of  the  Danes  in  England, 
and  about  the  same  time  changed  their  character  from 
predatory  incursions  to  definite  settlements.  Indeed,  in 
many  cases  the  invasions  are  contemporaneous,  and  the 
same  names  appear  now  in  England,  now  abroad.  We 
have  already  alluded  to  the  wide  extent  of  their  devasta¬ 
tions  and  the  terror  they  inspired,  but  to  understand,  in 
any  way,  the  miseries  which  Gaul,  Germany  and  Italy 
endured  during  this  period,  we  must 
remember  that  these  countries  were  torn  by 
the  most  deadly  internal  feuds,  which 
prevented  any  united  action  against  the 
common  foe.  The  children  of  Charles  the 
Great  were  fighting  for  the  spoils  of  his  wide 
empire,  and  violating  all  right,  justice,  and 
plighted  faith;  other  competitors  were  joining  the  strife 
and  struggling  for  their  share.  The  people,  down-trod¬ 
den,  neglected,  oppressed,  or  treated  as  so  many 
conscripts  who  could  be  hurried  to  the  battle-field,  were 


Misery  in 
Germany, 
Gaul  and 
Italy,  conse¬ 
quent  on  the 
break-up  of 
the  Empire 
of  the  West. 
888—912. 


888-912. 


The  Settlement  in  Gaul. 


33 


grouping  themselves  for  protection’s  sake  round  a  host 
of  greedy,  selfish  nobles,  or  sinking  down  and  increasing 
the  number  of  the  slaves.  Such  was  the  internal  position 
of  the  countries — a  meaningless,  hopeless  tale  of  hateful 
factions,  which  loads  the  memory  and  sickens  the  heart, 
and  amid  which  only  one  important  principle  struggles 
to  the  surface — namely,  the  rising  cry  of  nationality 
protesting  against  these  personal  quarrels  and  selfish 
compacts,  and  demanding  that  the  interest  of  people, 
and  not  of  kings,  should  decide  the  boundaries  of  the 
land.  Sadly  was  Europe  expiating  the  attempt  of  Charles 
to  raise  an  Empire  of  the  West,  an  attempt  which  came 
too  early  or  too  late.  Nor  was  this  all.  A  triple  scourge 
aggravated  these  self-inflicted  sores.  While  the  North¬ 
men  harassed  the  coasts  and  river-shores,  the  Hungarian 
cavalry  from  the  East  swept  over  Germany,  „ 

J  t  A  ir  Contemporary 

passed  the  Rhine,  and  penetrated  as  far  as  inroads  of 
Vermandois  and  Provence ;  crossed  the  Hungarians 
Alps,  and  devoured  the  Lombard  plains.  and  Saracens- 
Meanwhile  from  the  Mediterranean  and  from  Spain  the 
Saracens  harassed  the  south  of  Gaul,  and  joined  the 
Hungarians  in  Provence  and  the  Alps.  Of  the  condition 
of  the  lower  classes  we  know  but  little. 

History  has  recorded  the  cruelties,  the  Misery  of  the 

J  people. 

virtues,  the  honours  and  dishonours,  the 
victories,  the  defeats,  of  the  great ;  but  about  the 
poorer  classes  she  is  generally  silent,  or  at  best  has  but 
a  stammering  tale  to  tell.  We  may  quote,  however,  the 
words  of  the  later  author  of  the  Romance  of  Rollo: 
“  What  do  we  see  around  ?  Churches  burning,  people 
slaughtered,  through  the  weakness  of  the  king.  The 
Northmen  wreak  their  will  in  France.  From  Blois  to 
Senlis  not  a  grain  of  corn,  and  no  one  dares  to  labour  in 
field  or  vineyard.  If  war  cease  not,  famine  is  at  our 


34 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D, 


doors."  This  poem  was  not  written  till  the  twelfth 
century,  but  the  author  borrows  from  earlier  writers,  and 
we  may  believe  that  his  words  were  true  enough.  Well 
might  the  choirs  of  the  South  chant  their  petition  :  “  From 
the  arrows  of  the  Hungarians  may  the  Lord  deliver  us!" 
and  those  of  the  North  answer  in  despairing  cadence : 
"From  the  fury  of  the  Northmen  save  us,  Lord!" 

The  incursions  of  the  Northmen  in  Gaul  naturally  fall 
into  three  groups,  guided  by  the  great  rivers  and 
intervening  shores,  i.  The  North  Expedition,  which 
includes  the  territories  around  the  Rhine, 
Geographical  Scheldt,  and  the  Elbe,  the  farthest 

division  of 

the  settle-  southern  point  being  the  Neckar  and  the 
Rhine.  2.  The  districts  of  the  Loire  and 
Garonne,  reaching  as  far  west  as  Spain,  and  inland  as 
far  as  Bourges.  3.  Those  of  the  Seine, 
twe^Sclndi'  Somme,  and  Oise. 

navtan  settle-  The  invasions  of  Gaul  by  the  Northmen 

merits  in  Eng-  J 

land  and  differ  from  those  of  England  by  the  Danes 

Gaul.  •  .  ,  . 

in  one  material  point.  Numerous  as  they 
were,  they  were  isolated  and  scattered ;  those  of  the 
Danes  in  England  continuous.  Consequently  the  latter 
permanently  occupied  one-half  of  England,  and,  though 
becoming  Englishmen,  still  retained  a  certain  local 
existence,  and  remained  more  or  less  distinct  until  the 
Norman  Conquest. 

But  the  settlers  in  Gaul,  lying  in  small,  isolated  groups, 
and  but  little  recruited  by  new  comers,  soon  became 
entirely  merged  in  the  surrounding  nationality,  and  lost 
their  individuality.  Hence  it  is  that  one  settlement  alone, 
that  of  Rollo  at  Rouen,  in  any  sense  survived,  all  the 
rest  being  rapidly  lost  to  history.  Even  here  it  is  not 
as  Northmen  but  as  Frenchmen  that  the  settlers  are 
important.  The  followers  of  Rollo  became  French  and 


888-912. 


The  Settlement  in  Gaul. 


35 


assumed  the  language,  and  so  rapidly  did  the  change 
occur,  in  the  court  at  least,  that  the  grandson  of  Rollo 
had  to  be  sent  to  the  district  of  Bayeux,  which  longest 
retained  its  Scandinavian  character,  to  learn  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  his  forefathers. 

Remembering,  then,  that  the  incursions  of  the  North¬ 
men,  though  they  had  a  terrible  reality  while  they  lasted, 
were  but  in  a  few  cases  permanent  in  their  result,  we 
may  at  once  dismiss  all  but  the  last. 

The  mouth  of  the  Seine  offered  a  tempting  opening  to 
the  pirates  as  they  skirted  the  shores  of  Gaul,  and  the 
commercial  city  of  Rouen  had  early  attracted 
their  plundering  expeditions,  Gaining  bold-  Settlements 
ness,  they  pressed  inland,  and  continually 
threatened  Paris,  then  a  town  on  the  frontier  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  West  Franks,  whose  capital  lay  at  Laon. 
So  frequent  were  these  piratical  invasions  that  in  861 
Charles  the  Bald  granted  the  city  and  a 
large  district  round  it  to  Robert  the  Strong  “  March  ” 
as  a  March  or  border  territory  against  the  Northmen' 
Northmen.  From  that  day  forth  the  desti-  861 
nies  of  Paris  began  to  rise,  at  first  against  the  Normans, 
and  then  in  league  with  them,  until,  by  the  accession  of 
Hugh  Capet,  she  finally  became  the  capital,  and  her 
Count  the  first  king,  of  modern  France. 

Fifteen  years  afterwards,  according  to  the  chronicles, 
Rollo,  the  future  Duke  of  Normandy,  entered  the  Seine, 
and  from  that  day  till  912  ravaged  the  un¬ 
fortunate  country.  This  Rollo,  termed  the 
Ganger  or  Walker,  because  he  was  too  tall  and  stout  for 
any  horse  to  bear,  is,  so  far  as  his  earlier  exploits  are 
concerned,  somewhat  a  legendary  hero.  The  son  of 
Rognwald  Jarl  of  Mori  in  Norway,  he  came  of  a  family 
of  Vikings.  His  brother-in-law,  Einar,  was,  as  we  have 


Rollo,  876. 


36 


The  Nortnatis  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


seen,  Jarl  of  the  Orkneys.  Rollo  is  described  as  follow¬ 
ing  the  calling  of  a  Viking  in  Gaul  and  England  for 
nearly  forty  years  before  his  final  settlement  at  Rouen. 
He  is  said  to  have  joined  Guthrum  in  his  wars  against 
Alfred,  but  to  have  been  persuaded  by  the  Saxon  king 
to  leave  England,  and  seek  richer  spoil  in  France.  His 
exploits  are  spread  over  so  many  years,  that  it  seems 
likely  that  there  were  two  men  of  the  same  name  whose 
deeds  have  been  confounded.  To  add  to  our  difficulty, 
there  is  a  gap  in  the  contemporary  chronicles  from  900 
to  91 1.  We  must  therefore  be  contented  to  leave  him  as 
we  find  him,  a  hero  of  romance,  and  follow  the  accounts 
left  us  by  the  chroniclers  and  sagas.  In  the  year  888, 
the  fatal  year  which  saw  the  final  dismemberment  of 
the  empire  of  Charles  the  Great,  began  the  famous  siege 
of  Paris  by  Rollo.  The  town  was,  however,  successfully 
defended  by  its  Count,  Eudes,  who  in  reward  was  for  a 
time  chosen  king  of  France.  When  the  chroniclers 
speak  again,  we  find  Rollo  in  possession  of  Rouen,  and 
Gaul  in  a  pitiable  state.  In  spite  of  his  defeat  by  the 
Count  of  Paris,  Rollo’s  devastations  continued,  until  at 
last  Charles  the  Simple  granted  him  by  treaty  the  terri¬ 
tories  which  were  already  his  own,  and  thus,  as  Alfred 
the  Great  had  done  for  England,  gained  a  respite  for 
the  distracted  country.  By  this  treaty  of  Clair  on  Epte, 
Rollo  secured  the  country  from  the  Epte  to 
granted""™  the  sea,  and  the  over-lordship  of  Brittany, 
Rollo  by  with  the  hand  of  Gisela,  the  daughter  of 

treaty  of  .  . 

Clair  on  Charles  the  Simple,  and,  accepting  Chris- 
Epte,  91..  tianity  as  the  price  of  the  treaty,  was  led  to 
the  font  by  Robert,  Count  of  Paris,  who  consented  to  be 
his  godfather.  To  the  demand  of  Charles  that  Rollo 
should  do  homage  to  him  and  kiss  his  toe,  the  inde¬ 
pendent  Northman  answered  indignantly,  "  Ne  si,  by 


912. 


The  Settlement  in  Gaul. 


37 


Got"  tNot  so,  by  God).  When  at  last  he  consented 
that  it  should  be  done  by  proxy,  it  is  said  that  King 
Charles  was  thrown  backwards  by  the  rudeness  of  the 
Danish  soldier,  as  he  raised  his  foot  to  kiss  it.  The  tale 
probably  points  to  a  real  act  of  homage  done  by  Rollo ; 
but  the  Normans  of  later  date  appealed  to  it  to  show 
that  they  held  their  country  of  no  higher  sovereign- 
in-chief,  but  of  God  alone,  and  were  proud  of  an  insult 
offered  with  impunity  to  a  descendant  of  the  great  Em¬ 
peror  of  the  West. 

As  to  the  internal  condition  of  the  province  after  the 
occupation,  it  is  impossible  to  speak  with  certainty.  The 
land,  we  are  told,  was  “roped”  out  among  Interna] 
his  followers.  Most  probably  the  Northmen  condition  of 
became  the  only  land  owners,  while  the  Normand>  • 
conquered  race  was  reduced  to  a  state  of  serfdom.  The 
country  seems  to  have  been  divided  into  counties,  and 
bestowed  upon  the  chief  advisers  of  Rollo,  but  in  the 
absence  of  written  documents  of  any  kind  during  the 
reigns  of  the  first  two  dukes,  it  is  idle  to  speculate  on  the 
political  condition  of  the  dukedom.  The  legend,  which 
under  various  forms  so  often  appears  in  many  countries, 
that  the  duke's  bracelets  hung  to  a  tree  and,  unguarded 
except  by  the  terror  of  his  name,  remained  untouched 
for  full  three  years,  attests  the  vigilance  of  his  govern¬ 
ment.  Towns  and  churches  rose  again  under  his  pater¬ 
nal  sway,  and  the  fame  of  Rollo  the  pirate  was  soon  lost 
in  that  of  Rollo  the  legislator  and  father  of  his  people. 

Leaving  Rollo  definitely  settled  at  Rouen,  let  us  look 
around  us  and  consider  the  condition  of  that  part  of 
Western  Europe  in  which  Rollo  and  his 

,  ...  .  Condition 

successors  were  to  play  so  important  a  part.  0f  Western 
Geography,  which  in  early  times  is  history,  ^j“rope  ln 
had  cried  out  against  the  empire  of  Charles 


38 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Dismember¬ 
ment  of 
Empire  of 
the  West. 
888. 

Rise  of 
separate 
kingdoms. 
Germany. 


the  Great,  and  national  aspirations  triumphed  at  last. 
After  the  death  of  Charles  III.,  who  had  for  a  moment 
reunited  the  dominions  of  the  Emperor 
Charles  the  Great,  the  ill-assorted  elements 
were  for  ever  separated,  and  four  kingdoms 
arose — i,  Germany;  2,  Italy;  3,  Burgundy; 
4,  Gaul.  Of  these  Germany  fell  into  a  kind 
of  loose  federation  of  four  nations — Fran¬ 
conia,  Saxony,  Swabia,  Bavaria,  with  their 
separate  laws  and  their  own  dukes,  each  of  which  in 
turn  gave  a  king  to  Germany.  On  the  death 
896-912:  of  Arnulf,  an  illegitimate  descendant  of 

Franconia,  Charles  the  Great  who  had  been  chosen 
912.918:  king,  Conradof  Franconia,  acknowledged  by 

all  the  nations  except  Lotharingia,  obtained  the  crown, 
and  the  same  year  which  saw  Rollo  established  in  Nor¬ 
mandy  saw  Germany  transferred  to  her 
Saxony?  national  kings.  He  was  succeeded  by 

918-936.  Henry  I.,  of  the  house  of  Saxony.  Both 

these  were  descended  by  the  female  side  from  Charles 
the  Great ;  but  the  rise  of  the  power  of  Saxony,  the  em¬ 
peror’s  most  deadly  foe,  rather  points  to  the  final  exclu¬ 
sion  of  his  race  from  Germany. 

Italy  and  the  Empire,  generally  but  not 

Italy  and  _  .  ,  ... 

the  Empire.  always  hanging  together,  were  tossed  like 

Oth°  I.,  shuttlecocks  to  and  fro,  until  Otho  I.  de- 

Papacy.  scended  from  Germany  and  claimed  the 

Imperial  and  the  Iron  Crown;  and  the  Papacy,  passing 

into  the  hands  of  a  succession  of  infamous  popes,  the 

paramours  and  bastard  sons  of  two  shameless  women, 

bade  fair  to  lose  all  moral  influence  in  Europe. 

At  this  time  there  were  two  kingdoms  of  Burgundy. 


1.  Transjurane,  consisting  of  North  Savoy  and  all  Swit¬ 
zerland  between  the  Reuss  and  the  Jura,  then  under 


888-912. 


The  Settlement  in  Gaul. 


39 


one  king  named  Rudolf.  2  Cisjurane  Bur¬ 
gundy,  consisting  of  Provence,  Dauphine,  Jems  of"8" 
the  south  of  Savoy,  and  the  country  between  Burgundy. 

1  888-912. 


the  Saone  and  the  Jura,  afterwards  called 
The  County  of  Burgundy,  or  Franche  Comte.  This 
kingdom,  founded  by  Boso  of  Provence  in  879,  was 
then  in  the  hands  of  his  son  Louis,  who,  after  ,  .  , 

gaining  the  country  west  of  the  Rhone  and  Provence 
most  of  Languedoc,  had  aspired  to  the  dan-  u"7  y  S 
gerous  bauble  of  the  Empire.  He  was  half  blinded  by 
his  rival,  Berengar,  and  returned  home  to  live  in  retire¬ 
ment  till  his  death.  His  dominions  soon 
after  passed,  with  the  exception  of  Dau-  ^“dolf  1I- 
phine,  to  his  more  successful  neighbour, 
and,  under  Rudolf  II.,  became  the  kingdom  of  Arles* 
Gaul,  on  the  death  of  Charles  III.,  becomes  for  just 


100  years  the  object  of  contention  between  the  last  of 
the  Karolings  and  the  rising  house  of  Ca- 

,  ,  T  .  ,  „  &  .  .  Gaul.  888. 

pet,  between  the  Imperial  German-speaking  object  of 

city  of  Laon  and  the  ducal  French-speaking  between011 


city  of  Paris.  At  first  Eudes,  Count  of  Paris,  Karolings 

/  a»  n  Counts 

raised  to  fame  by  his  successful  defence  of  of  Paris, 

Paris  against  the  Northmen,  was  chosen  Eudes! 
king,  and  although  his  rivals  brought  over  888'by9' 
the  young  Charles  the  Simple,  the  descendant  of  Charles 
the  Great,  from  England,  where  he  had  been  sent  for 
safety,  and  got  him  crowned,  the  Count  held  his  ground 


*  These  two  kingdoms  of  Transjurane  and  Cisjurane  Burgundy, 
which  subsequently  belonged  to  the  Empire,  must  not  be  con¬ 
founded  with  the  Duchy  of  Burgundy,  formed  of  the  country  round 
Dijon,  east  of  the  river  Saone,  which  always  belonged  to  France. 
At  this  time  held  by  Richard  the  Justiciar  (887-921),  it  was  shortly 
after  seized  by  Hugh  the  Great  of  Paris,  and  became  subsequent¬ 
ly  an  appanage  of  the  younger  son  of  Robert,  King  of  France. 


40 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


successfully  till  his  death  in  899.  Then 
Simple5, the  Charles  quietly  succeeded,  and  the  king- 
559-  ,  dom  of  the  West  Franks  was  once  more 

Extent  of 

his  king-  restored  to  the  city  of  Laon.  His  kingdom 
was  bounded  to  the  south  and  north  by  the 
Mediterranean  and  the  English  Channel,  and  stretched 
east  and  west  from  the  Meuse  and  the  Rhone  to  the  Py¬ 
renees.  In  addition  to  this  he  held  the  Channel  Islands 
and  the  County  of  Barcelona.  But  of  this  territory  he 
was  by  no  means  actual  master.  Brittany 
and  Aquitane  scarcely  acknowledged  his 
authority,  and  generally  stood  aloof,  while 
nearer  at  home  his  power  was  overshadow¬ 
ed  by  four  great  feudatories  who  often  set 
him  at  nought.  In  the  south  the  duchy  of 
Burgundy  was  held  by  Richard  the  Justici¬ 
ar.  In  the  north  the  County  of  Flanders, 
formed  as  a  March  by  Charles  the  Bald 
against  the  Northmen,  was  now  under  Baldwin  the 
Bold,  a  powerful  and  turbulent  vassal,  quarrelling  with 
everyone,  and  disturbing  the  peace  even  of  the  royal 
domain  itself. 


Indepen¬ 
dent:;  of 
Brittany, 
Aquitane, 
and  the  four 
great 

feudatories. 
Duchy  of 
Burgundy, 
887-921. 

G  unty  of 
Flanders. 


At  Paris,  another  March,  Robert,  Duke  of  France,  the 
brother  of  the  king’s  late  rival  Eudes,  the  deadly  foe  of 
„  „  his  race  and  name,  ruled  over  the  greater 

Paris,  part  of  Central  Gaul  north  of  the  Loire,  and, 

as  was  then  not  unfrequently  the  case,  en¬ 
joyed  considerable  wealth  as  lay  Abbot  of  St.  Denis  and 
St.  Germain  of  Paris,  and  of  St.  Martin  of  Tours.  Even 
the  narrow  extent  of  the  royal  domain,  composed  of  a 
small  district  round  the  city  of  Laon  and 
CounTof  Compi£gne,  was  threatened  in  the  north  by 

doisman"  Herbert  II.  of  Vermandois.  This  powerful 

Count,  descended  from  Pepin  the  son  of 


912. 


The  Settlement  in  Gaul. 


4i 


Metropoli¬ 
tan  See  of 
Rheims. 


Charles  the  Great,  and  holding  the  rich  territories  of 
Rheims,  Soissons,  Senlis,  St.  Quentin  and  Peronne, 
claimed  a  purer  and  more  certain  descent  from  the  Em¬ 
peror  than  Charles  himself,  and  was  only  biding  his 
time  to  become  the  gaoler,  and  perhaps  the  murderer,  of 
his  king.  Lastly  came  the  Metropolitan  See 
of  Rheims,  lying  within  the  territories  of 
Vermandois,  yet  independent.  Its  primate 
was  the  Prince  Bishop  of  France,  and  its  possession  was 
a  continual  bone  of  contention  between  the  rival  princes. 
Gaul,  in  fact,  was  a  loose  collection  of  powerful  princes 
owing  a  purely  nominal  allegiance  to  their  suzerain, 
which  they  discarded  whenever  their  interests  clashed. 
Perhaps  it  may  be  said  that  Charles  was  more  really 
master  of  German  Lotharingia  which,  refusing  to  ac¬ 
knowledge  the  upstart  Conrad  of  Franconia,  paid  a 
temporary  but  personal  allegiance  to  him  as  the  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  Karoling  line.  Already  had  Charles’s 
authority  been  disputed  by  these  turbulent  feudatories, 
and  the  quarrel  had  apparently  only  been  discontinued 
owing  to  the  renewed  invasions  of  the  Northmen  which 
preluded  the  settlement  of  Duke  Rollo  at  Rouen. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  Gaul  at  the  time  of  the 
treaty  of  Clair  on  Epte.  By  this  treaty  one 

1  ,  1  ,  Effect  of 

more  dangerous  vassal  was  admitted  within  settlement 
the  realm,  but  the  immediate  result  was  a 
decided  gain  to  Charles.  Plainly  it  was  at  the  expense 
of  the  Dukes  of  Brittany  and  of  Paris  that  the  cession 
was  made.  Charles  resigned  a  territory  over  which  he 
had  but  little  power,  and  the  two  first  Norman  dukes 
fully  repaid  the  gift  by  heartily  supporting  Charles 
throughout  the  rest  of  his  troubled  life. 

The  common  danger  from  the  Northmen  Quarrel*!1 
once  removed,  the  quarrels  again  broke 


42  The  Nortnans  in  Europe.  a.  d. 

out.  Charles,  by  the  spontaneous  allegiance  of  Lo- 
tharingia  and  by  the  aid  of  the  Northmen, 
had  gained  an  increase  of  strength,  and 
jealousy  perhaps  was  the  immediate  cause 
of  the  rebellion.  A  strong  coalition  arose. 
Robert  of  Paris  was  chosen  king,  leaning  on 
the  united  powers  of  Vermandois  and  Bur¬ 
gundy.  Yet  Charles,  aided  by  the  people 
of  Lotharingia,  by  Rollo  and  some  North¬ 
men  who  had  settled  on  the  Loire,  was 
strong  enough  to  win  a  great  battle  at 
Soissons,  where  Robert  paid  the  penalty 
with  his  life.  Hugh  the  Great,  his  son, 
might  well  have  aspired  to  the  crown.  But 
now,  as  throughout  his  life,  he  preferred  the 
less  dangerous  position  of  the  king-maker, 
and  Rudolf  of  Burgundy,  his  brother-in-law, 
accepted  the  dangerous  post.  Charles  the 
Simple,  trusting  himself  to  the  plighted  troth 
of  Herbert  of  Vermandois,  and  placing 
himself  in  his  power,  was  faithlessly  seized 
and  kept  a  prisoner,  with  one  short  interval,  until  his 
death.  In  revenge,  Rollo  ravaged  the  country  of  the 
Duke  of  Paris,  and  a  long  war  of  four  years  ensued, 
generally  to  the  advantage  of  the  Norman  duke. 

This,  though  it  did  not  open  the  prison  to  the  royal 
captive,  added  two  important  acquisitions  to 
Rollo  gains  the  Norman  territory.  The  Bessin,  the  dis- 
trict  round  Bayeux,  was  granted  to  Rollo,  as 
well  as  the  land  of  Maine.  The  claim  to  the  latter  was 
left  for  Rollo’s  successors  to  enforce,  but  of  the  former 
he  gained  immediate  possession,  and  it  henceforth 
formed  the  most  important  portion  of  the  duchy.  A 
Saxon  colony  had  existed  there  since  the  later  days  of 


922. 

Rebellion  of 
Robert  of 
Paris, 
Herbert  of 
Vermandois, 
and  Robert 
of  Burgundy. 
Charles 
aided  by 
Rollo. 

Rebels  over¬ 
thrown  at 
Soissons. 


923- 
Death  of 
Robert  of 
Paris. 

Hugh 

assumes 

character  of 

king-maker. 

Rudolf  of 

Burgundy 

pretender. 

Charles 

the  Simple 

taken 

prisoner. 

923-927. 


932- 


The  Settlement  in  Gaul. 


43 


the  Roman  empire,  and  alone  of  the  Teutonic  settle¬ 
ments  had  resisted  the  absorbing  influence  of  the 
Romance  element.  Now,  reinforced  by  the  new  settle¬ 
ment  of  a  kindred  race,  it  maintained  its  Teutonic  char¬ 
acter  and  speech.  In  the  reign  of  Rollo’s  successor  it 
formed  the  nucleus  of  a  rebellion  of  the  non-Romanized 
element  of  the  duchy  against  the  other,  then  become 
thoroughly  French.  To  it  his  grandson  was  sent  to 
learn  the  pure  language  of  his  fathers,  and  to  this  day  it 
retains  many  features  of  its  Saxon  and  Scandinavian 
origin. 

The  annexation  of  the  Bessin  was  the  last  exploit  of 
Rollo.  Shortly  afterwards,  at  the  demand  of  his  people, 
he  resigned,  though  unwillingly,  in  favour 

Rollo 

of  his  son.  Five  years  more,  it  is  said,  he  abdicates  in 
lived,  and  then  the  old  man  of  fourscore  son°andf  h'S 
and  odd  years — years  teeming  with  deeds  dles’  932- 
of  strange  contrast,  of  stranger  import  to  future  times — 
disappears  from  history.  As  we  stand  over  his  tomb  in 
the  chapel  of  St.  Romanus  at  Rouen,  strange  are  the 
thoughts  which  flit  across  our  mind.  Here  lies  the  once 
dread  Viking,  the  pillager  of  France;  then  one  of  the 
most  powerful  of  her  sons,  a  duke,  a  legislator;  the 
father  of  his  people,  the  progenitor  of  a  long  line  of 
dukes  and  kings.  When  all  is  told,  we  know  but  little 
of  him.  Many  of  the  rolls  which  would  have  recorded 
his  fame  were  probably  burnt  by  his  own  hand.  To 
recall  all  the  events  of  his  varied  life  is  now  beyond  the 
power  of  man ;  but  the  best  proof  of  his  power  and  his 
genius  is,  that  it  was  his  life  that  inspired  a  canon  of  his 
own  town  Bayeux  to  write  one  of  the  earliest  romances 
of  modern  Europe,  and  that  while  all  other  settlements 
of  the  race  in  France  and  Germany  rapidly  disappeared, 
his  alone  has  lasted  on  and  deeply  affected  future  ages. 


44 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


WILLIAM  LONGSWORD. 

The  change  of  rulers  at  Rouen  in  no  way  altered  the 
attitude  of  parties  with  regard  to  the  question  of  the 
crown.  Charles  the  Simple  lived  till  020, 

O27-943.  .  .  r  7  7’ 

William  when  he  died  in  prison  — as  some  said, 

Longs"  ord.  poisoned.  By  this  event  Rudolf  should 

have  been  left  in  quiet  enjoyment  of  his  throne,  but 
this  was  not  the  object  of  Herbert  ofVer- 
Charles°the  mandois,  whose  support  of  him  had  all 
Simple,  along  been  selfish.  Herbert’s  one  aim  had 

been  to  weaken  the  royal  power  and  in¬ 
crease  his  own.  While,  therefore,  Charles  lived,  he  was 
the  liegeman  of  Rudolf;  when  Charles  died  Rudolf  was 
his  bitterest  enemy.  Nor  were  the  other 
Vermandois  great  men  of  France  much  better.  The 
RudoifgamSt  difference  was  of  degree,  not  of  kind.  If 
Herbert  was  perjured  and  faithless,  Hugh 
was  a  designing,  ambitious  man,  refusing  the  crown 
only  because  he  feared  its  dangerous  honour,  and  be¬ 
cause  he  saw  that  true  power  lay  in  the  hands  of  a  skil¬ 
ful  king-maker.  Arnulf  of  Flanders  was  prepared  for 

any  crime ;  and  William  Longsword,  the 
Selfishness  1  .  .  , 

of  all  best  among  his  rivals,  was  but  a  fickle, 

changeable  man.  To  make  matters  worse, 
all  these  nobles  were  allied  by  ties  of  blood  and  of 
marriage,  which  seemed  only  to  embitter  the  strife. 
Thus  Gaul  was  the  victim  of  a  series  of  hateful  family 
quarrels.  Hence  the  endless,  aimless  struggle  con¬ 
tinues,  and  the  history  becomes  terribly  confused.  Such 


927“936- 


William  Longsword. 


45 


must  often  be  the  case  when  the  only  principle  followed 
is  that  of  narrow  self-interest,  self-aggrandizement ;  and 
this,  in  the  narrowest,  most  selfish  sense,  was  the  aim  of 
one  and  all. 

Nor  were  there  wanting  other  causes  of  dispute.  At 
this  time,  sovereigns,  princes,  and  counts  were  all  trying 
to  appropriate  to  themselves  the  revenues  of  the  rich 
abbevs  and  benefices,  as  Robert  of  Paris  „ 

J  Competition 

had  done,  or  make  them  hereditary  in  their  for  the  See  of 
families.  At  this  date  the  important  Metro-  Rhcims- 
politan  See  of  Rheims  was  actually  in  the  dominions 
of  Herbert,  and  it  had  long  been  his  darling  object  to 
put  his  son  into  it.  Having  poisoned  the  Archbishop,  he 
at  last  gained  his  end;  and  the  boy  of  five 
years  old  was  shamefully  foisted  into  the  ^d^Arch-0" 
See,  and  made  to  lisp  the  responses  at  his  bishop  at  age 
institution.  We  have  from  a  contemporary  1  3 
a  naive  description  of  the  ludicrous  yet  shocking  scene 
which  followed  these  youthful  consecrations,  frequent  at 
that  period.  The  child,  taught  to  repeat  the  responses 
or  spell  them  if  he  could  not  get  them  by  heart,  usually 
behaved  pitiably,  sometimes  breaking  out  into  a  whimper 
in  dread  of  the  accustomed  chastisement  for  not  know¬ 
ing  his  lesson.  For  the  violation  of  all  decency  Herbert’s 
adversaries  probably  cared  little,  but  they  resented  the 
dangerous  increase  of  his  power,  and  opposed  his  boy- 
bishop. 

The  quarrel  continued,  and  Rudolf,  though  supported 
by  Aquitaine,  Hugh  of  Paris,  and  William  Longsword, 
only  held  a  precarious  position  till  his  death, 

936.  No  sooner  had  this  occurred  than  the  p0“?edbyP 
turbulent  feudatories,  impatient  of  a  master  Aquitaine, 
who  was  one  of  themselves,  determined  to  sword,  and 

,  ,  .  .  .  ...  .  Hugh  of  Paris, 

have  a  king,  and  there  still  remained  a  hoidsapreca- 

E 


46 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A-  D 


nous  position  Karoling  prince  to  represent  the  roval  line. 

until  his  death.  °  r  ...  ,  .  ' 

936  ALdgifu,  the  wife  of  the  unfortunate  Charles, 
meTmade  k'ing.  upon  her  husband’s  imprisonment,  had  fled 
with  her  young  son  hidden  in  a  truss  of  hay, 
to  the  court  of  her  brother,  the  great  Athelstan,  under 
whose  sheltering  power  England  became  the  home  of  all 
unfortunate  exiles.  This  son,  Lewis  ‘d’Outre-mer’  (from 
beyond  the  sea),  was  now  recalled,  and,  in  a  great 
council,  invested  with  the  royal  authority ;  Hugh  of  Paris 
again  refusing  the  proffered  honour,  and  preferring  the 
post  of  guardian  to  the  young  king.  Thus,  then,  was 
the  throne  of  France  for  the  last  time  restored  to  the 
Karoling  line. 

In  the  hope  of  keeping  some  sort  of  thread  through 
this  miserable  civil  war,  we  have  carried  our  sketch  of 
it  without  a  break  to  the  date  of  Lewis  d’Outre-mer's 
accession.  We  must  now  return  and  treat  of  the  internal 
affairs  of  the  duchy. 

Brittany  had  been  nominally  granted  to  Rollo  by 
Charles  the  Simple  at  the  treaty  of  Clair  on  Epte,  but 
Charles  in  so  doing  had  granted  that  over 
Brittany,  which  he  had  no  real  power.  The  Bretons, 

930-932.  proud  of  their  Keltic  descent,  proud  of  hav¬ 

ing  escaped  the  all-embracing  empire  of  Charles  the 
Great,  resented  this  act.  The  want  of  unity  between  the 
various  provinces  had  hitherto  kept  them  quiet.  They 
had  perforce  submitted  to  the  continued  devastations  of 
the  Northmen  from  the  sea,  who  were  seeking  to  carve 
out  dependencies  for  themselves  as  Rollo  had  done,  and 
to  the  galling  yoke  of  the  Norman  duke.  But  now, 
roused  by  the  change  of  rulers  at  Rouen,  they  rose 
under  two  of  their  princes,  Berenger  and  Alan,  mas¬ 
sacred  the  Northmen  in  their  country,  and  invaded  the 
Norman  duchy.  William,  however,  completely  crushed 


93°~933- 


William.  Longsword. 


47 


Revolt 

suppressed. 


Cotentin  and 
Channel 
Islands  ceded 
to  Normandy 
Importance  ot 
this. 


the  revolt,  Berenger  submitted,  Alan  fled 
to  the  court  of  Athelstan,  and  when  re¬ 
stored,  on  the  intercession  of  the  latter,  was 
forced  to  accept  the  terms  imposed  by  the  conqueror  at 
the  first  suppression  of  the  rebellion.  The 
result  was  an  important  increase  of  the 
Norman  territory  by  the  acquisition  of  the 
Cotentin  and  the  Channel  Islands,  and  the 
formal  acknowledgment  of  the  Norman 
supremacy  over  the  rest  of  Brittany. 

The  door  was  thus  opened  to  further  conquests  in  the 
east  and  south,  in  Maine  and  Brittany.  Normandy, 
advanced  to  the  sea-board  on  the  west,  gained  a  bound¬ 
ary,  important  as  well  for  its  physical  characteristics  as 
for  its  two  harbours ;  the  dangerous  Barfleur  to  the 
east,  and  the  important  Cherbourg  to  the  west,  marked 
out  by  the  Romans  as  a  stronghold,  from  whence 
perhaps  it  gained  its  name,  Caesaris  Burgus,  and  now 
the  most  important  port  of  Northern  France.  The 
district  thus  acquired  formed  the  kernel  of  Norman 
nationality  which  sent  forth  in  later  times  the  conqueror 
of  Apulia  and  Sicily,  and  many  of  the  leaders  in  William 
the  Conqueror's  army. 

The  Channel  Islands  from  that  day  forward  belonged 
to  the  Norman  dukes,  were  transferred  to  England  at 
the  Conquest,  were  retained  when  John  lost  Normandy, 
and  to  this  day,  though  French  in  speech,  remain 
English  in  heart  and  allegiance,  forming  distinct  com¬ 
monwealths  dependent  on  the  English  crowd,  but  send¬ 
ing  no  representative  to  Parliament,  and  enjoying  a 
legislative  independence  perhaps  unequalled  by  any 
island  immediately  round  our  coasts,  if  we  except  the 
Isle  of  Man. 

We  have  seen  how  completely  the  followers  of  Rollo 


48 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


had  thrown  themselves  into  the  dynastic 

932-33. 

Revolt  of  the  quarrels  of  their  adopted  country,  and  as- 
Damsh  party.  sumc(j  the  iar)guage  anci  the  manners  of 

Frenchmen.  One  district  alone,  the  lately  acquired  district 
round  Bayeux,  formed  the  exception,  and  this  now 
became  the  nucleus  for  the  disaffected  spirits.  Here 
collected  those  who  thought  it  shame  to  cast  off  their  old 
gods,  their  leaders  to  victory,  and  the  language  which 
they  had  learnt  at  their  mother’s  knee.  Their  connection 
with  the  Danish  part  of  England,  the  fiords  of  Norway, 
and  the  coasts  of  Denmark  had  apparently  by  no  means 
ceased,  and  the  new  comers  fostered  the  old  Northman 
spirit  of  independence  at  Bayeux. 

Of  the  amalgamation  with  the  Franks,  William  Long- 
epee  was  a  thorough  representative.  Born  of  a  Frankish 
mother,  he  had  been  taught  to  consider  himself  a  West 
Frank,  and  had  been  brought  up  as  such.  Indeed,  his 
very  character,  his  fickleness,  brilliancy,  and  impulsive¬ 
ness,  all  proclaim  his  Frankish  rather  than  his  Norse 
descent,  while  the  legend  that  he  was,  in  his  later  days, 
with  difficulty  dissuaded  from  becoming  a  monk,  shows 
that  he  had  embraced  Christianity  with  all  the  sincerity 
of  which  he  was  capable.  As  such  he  was  hated  by  the 
Danish  party,  and  the  death  of  Rollo  seemed  to  give 
them  an  opportunity  for  revolt.  It  is  not  impossible 
that  the  struggle  may  bear  some  analogy  to  the  later  dis¬ 
sensions  in  the  northern  kingdoms  themselves.  There 
we  find  Christianity  supported  by  the  kings  who  are 
aiming  at  centralization  and  organization,  while  the 
minor  princes  fight  for  paganism  and  independence. 
The  result  in  Normandy  was  a  formidable  rebellion 
which  threatened  to  overthrow  the  ducal  power,  and  to 
confine  the  French  language  and  religion  to  Evreux  and 
Rouen.  William  showed  for  a  time  the  greatest  weak- 


934- 


William  Longsword. 


49 


ness.  The  terms  which  he  had  stooped  to  offer  having 
been  rejected,  William,  in  despair,  thought  of  leaving 
Normandy  till,  encouraged  by  the  bravery  of  Bernard 
the  Dane,  his  father's  trusted  adviser,  with  that  strange 
changeableness  which  seems  to  have  been  with  him  a 
physical  as  well  as  a  moral  failing,  he  suddenly  became 
brave  as  a  lion,  pounced  on  the  rebels,  and  utterly  routed 
them.  The  danger  he  had  escaped  seems 
to  have  had  an  important  influence  on  Wil  °f  this 

r  m  revolt  on  W  ll- 

liam’s  conduct,  both  in  internal  and  exter-  liam^Long- 
nal  affairs,  and  in  fact  to  explain  the  incon-  u  'd  s  1"ll‘' ' 
sistencies  of  his  later  life.  At  first  he  strove  to  crush  out 
the  Danish  party,  and  to  become  more  tho¬ 
roughly  French  than  ever.  Hence,  perhaps, 
his  adhesion  given  to  Rudolf  at  this  date,  and  his  re¬ 
pudiation  of  the  lovely  Esprota,  his  first  wife,  whom  he 
had  married  by  Danish  rite — that  is,  without 
religious  ties — for  Leutgarda,  sister  of  Her¬ 
bert  of  Vermandois,  and  his  neglect  of  Richard,  Es- 
prota’s  son.  His  object  then  was  to  gain  the  favour  of 
the  Frankish  nobles.  To  this  we  may  perhaps  also 
attribute  his  closer  connection  with  the  Church,  and, 
contrary  to  his  usual  niggardly  habits,  his  foundation  of 
the  abbey  of  Jumieges.  His  vain  attempts  to  gain  lasting 
alliances  in  that  faithless  age  did  not  succeed ;  nay,  his 
own  fickleness,  his  turn- coat  policy,  utterly  prevented 
success.  Thus,  while  he  alienated  the  Danish  party,  he 
had  not  succeeded  in  making  friends  amongst  his  allies 
and  relations;  they  hated  him  as  the  captain  of  the 
pirates,  and  he  knew  it.  Therefore,  just  at  the  end  of 
his  life,  we  notice  a  sudden  change  of  policy.  A  fresh 
incursion  of  Danes  took  place,  and  he  welcomed  their 
arrival  and  allowed  them  to  settle  peaceably  in  the 
newly  acquired  district  of  the  Cotentin.  His  son  Richard, 


933- 


934- 


5° 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


suddenly  emerging  from  obscurity,  became  the  darling  of 
his  father,  was  entrusted  to  William’s  old  tutor,  Botho,  the 
Danish-born,  and  Bernard  the  Dane,  and  sent  to  Bayeux 
to  be  instructed  in  the  Danish  tongue.  This  change,  we 
may  well  believe,  contributed  to  his  ruin.  There  had 
long  been  a  bitter  enmity  between  William  and  his 
jealous  and  wicked  neighbour  Arnulf.  The  two  rivals 
had  married  sisters,  daughters  of  Herbert  of  Vermandois, 
but  at  that  time  such  alliances  served  but 
between  to  embitter  the  strife.  The  Count  of  Flan- 

Normandy  ders  Was  not  likely  to  look  upon  the  nest 

Handers.  0f  pirates,  as  they  called  the  Normans,  with 
a  favourable  eye.  Already  causes  of  jealousy  had  oc¬ 
curred.  Arnulf  had  offered  a  refuge  to  the  defeated 
Breton  rebels  ten  years  before,  and  William  in  revenge, 
had  aided  the  Count  of  Ponthieu,  whose  dominions  lay 
between  Normandy  and  Flanders,  and  whose  country 
Arnulf  had  coveted.  Now  William  was  allying  himself 
with  the  Northmen,  who  were  again  stirring 
and  troubling  England  and  Gaul  by  their 
renewed  incursions.  They  were  evidently  again  be¬ 
coming  dangerous,  and  William,  in  league  with  Lewis, 
might  well  be  preparing  fresh  troubles  for  Gaul.  A 
dangerous  coalition  was  arising,  so  Arnulf  argued,  and 
so  the  other  princes  thought,  to  which  Lewis  was  per¬ 
haps  lending  himself,  and  of  which  William  was  the 
soul  and  centre.  One  remedy  remained,  a  rude  and 
decisive  one:  William  must  be  murdered. 
Such,  probably,  were  the  main  causes  which 
led  to  the  mysterious  assassination  of  Wil¬ 
liam.  In  that  deed  Arnulf  no  doubt  was 
the  prime  mover ;  the  actual  assassin  was, 
probably,  one  of  the  old  Breton  rebels  who  had  the  blood 
of  relatives  to  avenge,  but  Hugh,  at  least,  seems  to  have 


Plot  against 
William 
Longsword 
led  by 
Arnulf  of 
Flanders. 


942. 


William  Longsword. 

secretly  favoured  it.  The  plot  being  laid, 

William  was  treacherously  invited  to  a  ne¬ 
gotiation  with  Arnulf  of  the  Somme  at  Pec- 
quigny,  separated  from  his  adherents,  and 
basely  murdered  on  the  Flemish  side  of  the  river. 

William  Longsword  is  one  of  those  characters  whom 
history  has  falsely  honoured,  and  he  finds  a  place  among 
the  acknowledged  heroes  of  France,  almost 
among  her  martyrs.  The  fame  of  the  Nor-  recter**" 
man  name,  the  partiality  of  the  Norman 
historians  who  wrote  for  Richard,  his  son,  his  tragic 
death,  the  romantic  interest  which  surrounds  the  early 
life  of  his  devoted  son,  his  own  attractive  character,  all 
have  contributed  to  throw  an  unreal  glamour  round 
his  name.  In  him  we  find  the  weaknesses,  and  the 
strength  of  his  double  nationality.  His  winning,  gra¬ 
cious  manners,  his  ready  wit  and  versatility,  he  gained 
from  his  gentle  mother  Popa ;  his  bright  features,  his 
bravery,  his  rough  sense  of  justice,  his  personal  vigour, 
were  the  gifts  of  his  father  Rollo ;  and  these  earned  him 
the  love  of  his  fellow-men.  But  the  fair  traits  were 
shaded  by  darker  tints.  Fickleness  and  faithlessness, 
these  were  the  faults  of  his  mother’s  race  and  of  his 
age,  and  these  he  shared  with  the  rest  of  his  contem¬ 
poraries.  A  creature  of  impulse,  his  justice  seems  to 
have  had  no  firmer  basis  than  that  of  natural  inclina¬ 
tion.  Often  seriously  wishing  to  abandon  his  ducal 
throne  for  the  seclusion  of  the  cloister,  he  yet  showed 
scanty  regard  for  the  things  of  Holy  Church,  and  was 
niggardly  in  his  endowments.  The  monasteries  were 
the  one  redeeming  element  in  those  distracted  times, 
and  these,  with  one  exception,  he  carelessly  neglected. 
The  paganism  of  his  father  seems  in  him  hardly  to  have 
been  eradicated,  and,  following  his  impulse  and  not  his 


5 1 


Dec.,  942. 
Murder  of 
William 
Longsword. 


52 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


conscience,  he  was  led  by  circumstances  from  one  shift 
to  another  to  the  fatal  meeting  on  the  banks  of  the 
Somme.  Had  he  pursued  one  consistent  policy  and 
remained  true  to  his  word,  he  would  have  been  at  least 
respected,  if  not  loved,  and  the  wicked  coalition  against 
his  life  might  never  have  been  formed.  As  it  was,  he 
was  snatched  away  in  the  midst  of  a  changeable,  aimless 
life;  and  the  existence  of  his  race  and  name  in  France 
was  endangered  by  the  long  rule  of  a  minor. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  CAPETIAN  REVOLUTION. 

Richard  in  our  days  would  have  been  called  a  bastard, 
and  as  such  he  was  branded  even  then  by  his  enemies. 
_.  ,  ,  ,  He  was  son,  not  of  Leutgarda  of  Verman- 

Richard  the  ° 

Fearless.  dois,  but  of  Esprota,  a  Breton  woman  of 

unknown  lineage,  whom  William  had  pre¬ 
viously  married  in  Danish  fashion  and  put  away  for  the 
stately  sister  of  Herbert  of  Vermandois. 

These  Danish  marriages  form  a  remarkable  feature  in 
Norman  history.  Of  the  five  generations  of  Norman 
dukes,  from  Rollo  to  William  the  Bastard,  or  the  Con¬ 
queror,  the  children  of  Richard  the  Good  alone  were 
born  of  a  marriage  sanctioned  by  the  Church,  and  legal 
_  ,  in  our  sense  of  the  word.  Loose  as  the 

Custom  of 

Danish  marriage  tie  universally  was  at  this  date  in 

Europe,  we  must  seek  for  another  explana¬ 
tion  of  this  custom  of  the  Normans,  which  found 
some  analogy  in  Danish  England.  The  Scandinavians 
seem  to  have  been  once  a  polygamous  people,  and  per¬ 
haps  this  was  a  remnant  of  the  ancient  state  of  society. 


942. 


Richard  the  Fearless. 


53 


The  position  of  a  woman  married  by  Danish  fashion 
seems  to  have  been  that  of  a  legally  recognized  concu¬ 
bine,  who  could  not  leave  her  husband  at  her  will,  and 
was  recognized  as  his  wife  until  he  chose  to  sever  the 
connection  and  seek  another  wife.  In  that  case  the  tie 
was  dissolved,  and  the  children  were  not  necessarily 
looked  upon  as  the  legal  heirs  of  their  father.  The 
Church  would  naturally  defend  this  view  and  assert  the 
superiority  of  the  wife  married  according  to  her  rites,  or, 
as  in  the  case  of  Richard  the  Fearless  himself,  enforce 
the  subsequent  celebration  of  religious  rites  between  the 
husband  and  his  concubine.  A  custom  of  this  sort  is 
found  among  the  Scandinavian  people  of  a  later  date, 
and  it  may  have  some  resemblance  to  the  custom  of 
hand-fasting  in  the  north  of  England,  by  which  the 
parties  bind  themselves  as  man  and  wife  for  a  year,  at 
the  end  of  which  the  connection  may  be  severed  or 
finally  completed  at  will.  The  so-called  illegitimacy  of 
Richard  would  not,  perhaps,  mar  his  claim  to  the  duke¬ 
dom  in  Norman  or  in  Frankish  eyes,  especially  since 
Leutgarda  bore  no  children  to  his  father.  Still,  the 
ambiguous  position  was  an  element  of  difficulty.  There 
were  enemies  enough  who  gladly  seized  the  opportunity 
of  disputing  Richard’s  inheritance  ;  and  Leutgarda,  who 
had  married  Theobald  of  Blois,  an  enemy  „  , 

'  Richard  s 

of  his  father,  and  was  by  some  accused  of  rivals  and 
having  assisted  in  the  murder,  pursued  her  enemies- 
step-son  all  her  life  with  the  traditional  hostility  of  a 
step-mother.  But  greater  dangers  surrounded  the 
young  duke.  His  father’s  death  was  fol¬ 
lowed  by  a  renewed  Danish  invasion  and  Danfch'in- 
settlement.  The  old  feud  between  the  Nor-  vasl?n  and 

revolt. 

man  and  Danish  party,  which  had  broken 

out  in  his  father’s  time,  and,  though  crushed,  had  been 


54 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


kept  alive  by  his  changeable  policy,  was  revived.  The 
Danish  party  welcomed  the  settlers.  Hugh  of  Paris  and 
Lewis  jealously  watched  their  opportunity.  The  latter, 
indeed,  had  not  apparently  any  hand  in  the  shameful 
murder  of  Duke  William,  but  the  Norman  power  had 
too  often  endangered  his  throne  for  him  to  miss  the 
chance  of  humbling  it  for  ever;  and  Hugh  had  particu¬ 
lar  reasons  for  joining  the  same  cause. 

A  few  months  after  William's  death,  the  sister  of 
Otlio  had  borne  Hugh  a  son,  Hugh  Capet,  the  future 
king  of  France.  The  old  king-maker  had  already  seen 
his  father  Robert,  and  his  brother-in-law  Rudolf  of 
Burgundy,  elected  kings  of  France.  He  had  been  the 
guardian  of  Lewis,  and,  although  he  himself  had  wisely 
refrained  from  aspiring  to  the  precarious  title,  he  now 
began  definitely  to  scheme  that  he  might  be  the  father 
of  a  king. 

Such  were  the  threatening  dangers  which  surrounded 
the  young  boy,  and  it  was  the  successful  struggle 
against  them  all  which  lends  such  romantic  interest  to 
his  earlier  years.  The  chief  hope  for  his  success,  nay, 
for  the  preservation  of  his  race,  lay  in  two  circumstances: 

the  loyal  fidelity  of  his  father's  friends,  Ber¬ 
nard  the  Dane,  Ivo  de  Belesme,  and  Osmund 
de  Centvilles  ;  and  the  certainty  that  the 
kingly  and  ducal  interests  of  Lewis  and  Hugh  would 
soon  diverge  and  break  up  the  coalition.  For  the 
„  ,  ,  present,  however,  they  were  firm  friends. 

Hugh  and  1  . 

Lewis  Hugh  was  confirmed  in  his  dukedom  of 

Burgundy,  and  the  state  of  Normandy 
offered  them  a  legitimate  opportunity  for  interference. 
There,  the  heathen  party,  recruited  by  the  renewed 
Danish  settlement,  had  rapidly  increased,  and  the 
young  duke  was  either  persuaded  or  forced  to  abjure 


Only  hope 
of  Richard. 


942. 


Richard  the  Fearless. 


55 


his  Christian  religion.  Thus  the  Christian  and  French 
parties  were  driven  to  appeal  to  Lewis  and  Hugh.  The 
wish  of  some  of  the  Danish  party  apparently  was  to 
unite  Normandy  with  the  kingdom  of  Denmark  ;  but 
even  short  of  this,  the  interference  of  Lewis  and  Hugh 
might  well  be  justified.  Rollo  had  sworn  to  become  a 
Christian  and  a  Frenchman,  his  grandson  had  willingly 
or  unwillingly  broken  that  compact,  a  party  in  the  duchy 
had  turned  against  their  duke  and  appealed  to  them  for 
aid  ;  feudal  ideas  were  fast  developing,  and  Lewis  might 
well  claim  the  wardship  over  the  fief  during 
the  minority  of  his  vassal.  Accordingly  the 
duchy  was  invaded,  the  Danish  party  over¬ 
thrown,  Rouen  seized,  and  Lewis  gained 
possession  of  the  young  duke’s  person,  while  Hugh 
secured  Evreux.  United  by  this  common 
robbery,  Lewis  and  Hugh  seemed  firmer  Richard 
friends  than  ever ;  and  Lewis,  elated  by  hands  of 
the  prospect  of  acquiring  the  whole  of  Nor¬ 
mandy,  granted  in  full  sovereignty  to  Hugh  the  duchy 
of  Burgundy,  which  henceforth  became  a  dependency 
of  the  lord  at  Paris.  But  here  all  concord 

Split  be- 

ended.  Lewis  wished  to  hold  all  Normandy ;  tween  Lewis 
Hugh  wished  to  have  his  share.  From  the  and 
very  first  he  had  been  forming  a  party  among  the  Nor¬ 
mans,  and  now  he  turned  against  his  ally.  Meanwhile 
Lewis  permanently  occupied  Rouen,  and  the  young 
Richard  transferred  to  the  town  of  Laon,  remained  to  all 
intents  a  prisoner  where,  if  we  may  believe  R.  R  ) 
the  Norman  authorities,  he  was  treated  with  |risonerat 
cruel  harshness.  The  French  party  among 
the  Normans,  who  had  under  the  first  impulse  of  terror 
applied  to  Lewis,  but  had  no  desire  to  become  subjects 
of  the  Karoling  king,  felt  their  old  spirit  of  inde- 


Normandy 
invaded  and 
conquered 
by  Hugh 
and  Lewis. 


56 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Richard 
escapes  from 
Laon. 
Normandy 
rebels  against 
Lewis. 

945. 


Richard 
assisted  by 
Harald 
Blaatand. 


pendence  stirred  up  by  this  base  conduct.  Hugh,  not 
improbably,  worked  upon  their  discontent,  and  they 
rapidly  slipped  away  from  Lewis.  Richard, 
aided  by  his  trusty  companion,  Osmund, 
escaped  from  Laon,  hidden  in  a  truss  of 
hay  ;  and  the  standard  of  revolt  was  raised. 
At  this  moment  a  new  ally  most  opportunely 
was  found.  Denmark,  since  the  days  of 
Gorm  the  Old  a  single  powerful  kingdom,  was  at  this 
date  in  the  hands  of  his  son,  Harald  Blaat¬ 
and  (Blue-tooth),  the  grandfather  of  our 
Canute.  In  Normandy’s  greatest  peril  this 
honest  man  appeared  on  her  coast,  rallied 
the  Normans  round  his  standard,  and  meeting  Lewis  on 
the  Dives  utterly  routed  him.  Lewis,  made  prisoner  in 
personal  combat  with  the  hardy  Danish  king,  escaped 
in  the  turmoil  which  succeeded,  only  to  fall 

945.  ,  / 

Battle  of  into  the  hands  of  the  enemies  stirred  up 

Lewis  made  against  him  by  Hugh.  Harald  now  passed 

prisoner.  through  the  land,  confirming  the  authority 
of  the  young  Duke  Richard  and  restoring  the  old  Nor¬ 
man  customs,  and  then,  his  mission  over,  returned  to 
his  northern  home.  Such  singular  disinterestedness  on 
the  part  of  a  heathen  king,  if  we  can  believe  the  tale, 
puts  to  shame  the  unfathomed  faithlessness  of  all  those 
so-called  Christian  princes  with  whom  we  have  had  to 
deal.  A  strange  mediator  between  the  Normans  and 
Lewis  was  found  in  the  treacherous  Hugh,  who  then 
became  his  gaoler.  Deaf  to  the  remonstrances  of 
Edmund  of  England,  Hugh  only  yielded  to  the  threats 
of  Otho  on  condition  that  Laon  should  be 
cedelaon0  ceded  to  him  ;  and  Lewis,  the  victim  of  his 
of  Pans'  own  greed,  regained  his  freedom  at  the 

price  of  his  own  imperial  city.  Hugh  and 


Richard  the  Fearless . 


57 


945- 


the  other  princes  renewed  their  homage;  but  the  Nor¬ 
mans,  exasperated  by  the  treatment  they  had  Richard 
undergone,  revived  their  old  claims  to  inde-  refuses 

pendence,  and,  if  we  may  believe  the  partial 
evidence  of  their  chroniclers,  repudiated  for  ever  the 
demands  of  the  Frankish  king.  Still,  Normandy  could 
not  hope  to  stand  alone ;  an  alliance  was 

r  .  Close  al- 

necessary,  and  it  was  sought  at  Pans.  Self-  liance  be- 
interest  alone  could  keep  Hugh  true  ;  but  at  and^Nor-'  "5 
the  time  this  so  clearly  pointed  to  alliance  mandy- 
with  Normandy,  that  the  Normans  were  justified  in 
looking  to  him  for  aid.  After  all,  Paris  was  the  natural 
ally  of  the  Normans.  Hitherto,  adhering  to  the  oath  of 
Rollo,  they  had  paid  a  personal  allegiance  to  the  Karo- 
ling  line;  but  now,  becoming  French,  they  of  necessity 
turned  to  Paris.  We  have  seen  in  the  reign  of  William 
Longsword  the  question  raised,  whether  they  were  to  be 
Frenchmen  or  Scandinavians.  This  had  been  decided 
in  favour  of  the  former,  and,  therefore, 

French  Paris,  and  not  Frank  Laon,  must  in 
future  be  their  ally.  The  alliance  assumed 
the  form  usual  at  that  time.  Feudal  ideas 
were  rapidly  growing,  and  Richard,  follow¬ 
ing  the  custom  of  the  day,  commended 
himself  to  Hugh  and  became  his  man;  while  Hugh, 
anxious  to  secure  the  friendship  of  the  Normans  for  his 
son,  betrothed  his  young  daughter  Emma  to  the  Nor¬ 
man  Richard. 

Thus  began  the  vassalage  of  the  Duke  of  Normandy 
to  the  Duke  at  Paris,  which,  though  sometimes  denied  by 
the  independent  Normans,  was  a  real  one,  and  deeply 
affected  their  future  history. 

We  have  now  arrived  at  a  point  where,  amid  the  hope¬ 
less  confusion  of  the  petty  struggles  by  which  the  king- 


Richard  is 
betrothed 
to  Emma, 
daughter  of 
Hugh,  and 
becomes  his 
vassal. 

946. 


58 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Paris  be¬ 
comes  the 
chief  oppo 
nent  ot 
Laon. 


dom  had  been  so  long  distracted,  two  principles  arise, 
and  become  definite  and  distinct. 

Since  the  days  of  Charles  the  Simple  the  chief  question 
at  issue  had  been  the  succession  to  the  throne  of  the 
West  Franks,  and  the  quarrels  and  treaties  between 
Laon  and  Paris  the  true  thread  of  these  dis¬ 
contents.  But  till  now  the  claim  of  Paris 
to  be  the  sole  rival  of  the  Karoling  line  had 
been  disputed  by  other  princes.  Burgundy 
had  already  given  a  king,  and  Vermandois,  proud  of  a 
descent  from  Charles  the  Great,  had  entered  the  lists  as 
a  competitor.  Now  Burgundy  was  annexed  to  ducal 
Paris ;  Vermandois,  since  the  death  of  Herbert,  according 
to  some  accounts  by  his  own  hand  (943),  had  been  di¬ 
vided  amongst  his  sons,  while  a  small  portion  had  gone 
to  extend  the  ever  growing  dominions  of  Hugh.  Arnulf, 
since  the  treacherous  murder  of  Duke  William,  seems 
to  have  lost  influence  and  power.  Normandy,  long  the 
chief  supporter  of  the  Karoling  line,  and  hitherto  the 
constant  enemy  of  Paris,  had  at  last  commended  itself 
to  Hugh,  and  concluded  a  strict  alliance.  From  all 
these  causes  the  power  of  Hugh  became  supreme:  no 
one  arose  to  dispute  his  claim  of  being  the  leader  of  the 
opposition  to  Lewis  and  his  family.  The  intricate  plot 
is  working  out,  the  catastrophe  is  at  hand,  and  the  chief 
actors  in  that  catastrophe  are  clearly  seen. 

The  second  principle  follows  from  the  first.  We  have 
seen  that  it  was  originally  the  two  chief  dukes  of  the 
West  Franks  who  were  allies  against  their 
king.  The  quarrel  then  was  one  of  the 
ducal  provincial  element  against  the  royal- 
imperial.  Now  that  kingly  interests  were 
definitely  at  stake,  it  was  only  natural  that  Lewis  should 
turn  to  his  neighbour  Otho,  The  king  of  Germany  had 


Alliance  of 
two  dukes 
against  the 
two  kings. 


946-953- 


Richard  the  Fearless. 


59 


himself  to  struggle  against  the  jealousy  of 
the  rival  provinces,  of  which  many  only 
surlily  acquiesced  in  the  establishment  of  the 
Saxon  line  upon  the  throne,  and  this  alone 
would  lead  him  to  favour  the  appeal  of  Lewis.  But  there 
was  another  reason.  Otho  had  probably  already  con¬ 
ceived  the  idea  of  claiming  the  empire  for  himself,  and 
reviving  in  his  own  person  the  position  of  Charles  the 
Great;  and  Lewis,  too  glad  to  get  valuable  aid  at  any 
price,  acquiesced. 

Thus,  the  quarrel  which  ensued  was  between  two 
kings  on  one  side  and  two  dukes  on  the  other,  the  pro¬ 
vincial  against  the  imperial  element ;  and  it  was  the 
severing  of  one  of  these  alliances  which  really  decided 
the  question.  As  long  as  the  German  king  supported 
Lewis  the  influence  of  Normandy  was  counterbalanced; 
but  when  that  policy  was  temporarily  abandoned  by 
Otho,  the  fall  of  the  house  of  Laon  and  the  rise  of  Cap- 
etian  France  was  the  necessary  and  inevitable  conse¬ 
quence.  It  is  fortunate  that  we  are  able  thus  to  clear 
our  way,  and  that  the  main  questions  at  issue  stand  out 
sharply,  because  of  the  details  it  is  extremely  hard  to 
feel  secure.  The  French  and  German  accounts  are 
meagre  in  the  extreme,  while  the  Norman  overwhelm  us 
with  details  which  are  probably  semi-mythical.  We 
shall,  therefore,  only  briefly  notice  the  chief  points  of 
interest. 

Otho,  indignant  at  the  terms  imposed  upon  Lewis  on 
regaining  his  freedom,  joined  him,  and  their  united 
forces  invaded  the  territories  of  Hugh  and  ^ 

Richard.  Repulsed  from  Laon,  Paris,  and  kings 
Rouen,  they  only  succeeded  in  taking  dukes*.' 

Rheims,  from  which  they  expelled  Hugh’s  946-953- 

nominee,  the  once  boy-bishop.  Laon  only  fell  in  949, 


Reason  for 
alliance  of 
Otho  and 
Lewis. 


6o 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Death  of 
Lewis,  954. 


and  then  by  stratagem.  The  Norman  chronicler  Dudo 
and  the  later  romancers  are  loud  in  their  rejoicings 
over  the  humiliation  of  the  kings  ;  but  though  their  ef¬ 
forts  were  crowned  by  no  signal  success,  the  cause  of 
Lewis  seems  to  have  steadily  advanced.  The  Church, 
which  was  again  beginning  to  make  its  voice  heard,  de¬ 
clared  for  the  kings,  and  Hugh  was  excommunicated  by 
the  Pope.  The  princes  of  Aquitaine  were  definitely 
gained  over,  and  by  953  Hugh  had  made  full  submis¬ 
sion.  Such  was  the  position  of  Lewis  when 
he  was  snatched  away  by  an  untimely 
death  at  the  age  of  thirty-three. 

It  has  been  usual  to  speak  of  the  last  representatives 
of  the  Karoling  line  as  poor  weakly  kings,  idly  dreaming 
away  their  lives  on  the  throne,  or  patiently 

Character  ,  .  .  ,  ,  V  ,  ,  3 

of  later  submitting  to  become  the  creatures  and  the 

Karoimgs.  prisoners  of  their  vassals  ;  and  the  contrast 
between  the  strength  of  Charles  and  the  incapacity  of 
his  successors  has  been  used  to  point  the  moral  of  many 
a  tale.  This  idea,  no  doubt,  owes  its  origin  to  the  per¬ 
sistency  of  their  bad  fortune,  but  is  entirely  untrue  as  to 
fact.  They  were  unsuccessful ;  they  were,  in  common 
with  the  rest  of  their  contemporaries,  wanting  in  politi¬ 
cal  morality,  which  often  injured  their  cause,  but  they 
were  by  no  means  deficient  in  energy  or  natural  ability. 
Had  they  been  so,  the  line  would  have  ended  long  be¬ 
fore.  The  lives  of  Charles  the  Simple  and  of  Lewis 
were  marked  by  singular  activity  ;  they  displayed  great 
power  of  bearing  up  against  reverses,  and  no  mean 
sagacity  in  taking  advantage  of  the  few  opportunities 
which  presented  themselves.  But  their  lot  was  cast  in 
desperate  times.  They  were  surrounded  by 
cultiesdlffi"  a  crowd  of  ambitious,  turbulent,  and  utterly 
fickle  feudatories,  who,  while  they  agreed 


954-956- 


Richard  the  Fearless. 


6  x 

in  nothing  else,  were  at  one  in  their  desire  to  set  at 
naught  the  authority  of  their  king,  and  whose  faithless 
alliances  were,  perhaps,  more  dangerous  than  open  hos¬ 
tility.  Their  reigns  were  troubled  by  constant  incursions 
of  the  Northmen  and  Hungarians.  The  people  were 
too  much  down-trodden  to  make  their  influence  felt  as 
they  did  at  a  later  date,  and  the  dynasty  of  Charles  the 
Great  had  not  been  based  upon  the  wants  and  wishes  of 
the  separate  nationalities. 

Truer  is  it  to  say,  that  the  work  would  have  been  too 
much  for  another  Charles  the  Great,  than  that  his  de¬ 
scendants  were  the  victims  of  their  own  incapacity. 

On  the  death  of  Lewis  the  destinies  of  Gaul  were 
again  in  the  hands  of  Hugh,  although  Otho  claimed  a 
real  but  ill-defined  supremacy.  To  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  these  two  men  we  may  ascribe 
the  election  of  Lothaire.  Otho  had  sup¬ 
ported  Lewis :  it  was  natural  he  should 
support  his  son.  As  for  Hugh,  a  king¬ 
maker  he  had  lived  and  a  king-maker  he  wished  to  die ; 
and  Lothaire,  at  the  age  of  thirteen,  like  his  father  be¬ 
fore  him,  ascended  the  throne  under  the  protection  of 
this  busy  intriguing  prince.  Hugh,  once  more  the  guar' 
dian  of  his  king,  hastened  to  turn  the  position  to  his  own 
advantage.  Gaining  from  Lothaire  a  grant  of  the  duchy 
of  Aquitaine,  he  embroiled  the  king  in  a  war  with  the 
princes  of  that  country,  but  their  combined 
forces  were  checked  before  Poictiers.  The  Hugh  dies, 

950. 

war  was  ended,  and  shortly  after,  Hugh’s 

successful,  restless,  intriguing  life  was  brought  to  a 

close. 

Unwilling  or  unable  to  assume  the  crown  himself, 
he  had  paved  the  way  for  his  son,  and  this  in  two 
ways.  The  constant  intrigues  of  his  earlier  life  had 

r 


Lothaire 
chosen  king 
under 
patronage 
of  Otho  and 
Hugh.  954. 


62 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Result  of 
his  life's 
work. 


tended  to  weaken  the  power  of  the  royal  line, 
and  the  final  alliance  made  with  Normandy 
eventually  served  to  place  his  son  upon  the 


throne. 

Left  a  minor  at  the  age  of  thirteen,  Hugh  Capet 
fell  by  the  will  of  his  father  under  the  guardianship  of 
Hu„h  Capet  Richard  the  Norman  duke,  and  the  alliance 
succeeds  to  was  cemented  in  060  by  the  consummation 

Fans  under 

guardian-  of  the  marriage  between  Emma  and  Rich- 
Richard  the  ard,  who  renewed  his  homage  to  his  ward. 
Fearless.  The  reiati0ns  between  Paris  and  Laon  re¬ 

mained  the  same,  Hugh  doing  homage  to  young  Lothaire. 
Thus  the  destinies  of  Laon  and  Paris  were  in  the  hands 
of  two  boys  of  almost  equal  ages,  the  Karoling  leaning 
more  and  more  on  the  staff  of  Germany,  and  the 
Frenchman  on  that  of  Normandy.  So  things  re- 
6  mained,  with  the  exception  of  one  short 

!)eath  of  war  between  Lothaire  and  Richard,  until 
Otho  1.,  973.  flje  death  of  Otho  I. 

By  that  event  the  last  hope  for  the  Karoling  line  was 
extinguished.  Lothaire  foolishly  quarrelled  with  his  suc- 
„r  ,  cessor,  Otho  II.,  about  the  possession  of 

Avar  between  .  * 

Lothaire  and  Lotharingia,  and  the  war  which  ensued  was 
Otho  11.,  978.  ended  by  the  death  of  the  two  rivals 

within  three  years  of  each  other.  Thus  by  the  impru¬ 
dence  of  Lothaire,  the  powerful  German  house  was  alien¬ 
ated  at  the  moment  when  its  aid  was  most  needed. 

Once  more  the  Karoling  line  was  chosen, 
L^fsV987,  and  Lewis,  the  son  of  Lothaire,  quietly 
bludiragSf’  succeeded  under  the  protection  of  Duke 
Hugh.  The  one  act  of  his  reign  was  to 
alienate  the  powerful  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  Adalbero, 
whose  interests  were  thus  transferred  to  Paris. 

At  Lewis’s  death  the  crown  was  again  referred  to  the 


987.  Richard  the  Fearless.  6j 

will  of  the  princes.  The  only  two  possible  competitors 
were  Charles  of  Lorraine,  the  uncle  of  the 
late  king,  and  Hugh  Capet.  Of  these,  £°X‘!h”ne. 
Charles  had  made  himself  unpopular  by 
accepting  part  of  Lotharingia  as  a  fief  of  the  empire,  and 
had,  in  some  sort,  been  already  passed  over  when  not 
elected  to  share  the  kingdom  with  Lothaire,  according 
to  the  usual  custom.  Now  that  Lotharingia  was  definitely 
a  fief  of  the  Empire,  Laon  was  evidently  not  the  place 
for  the  capital  of  a  French  kingdom,  nor  the  German¬ 
speaking  Charles  the  person  to  be  king  over  a  French- 
speaking  people.  Indeed,  when  we  review  the  past  we 
are  tempted  to  wonder  that  the  Karoling  line  had  not 
long  ere  this  been  abandoned,  not  that  it  was  aban¬ 
doned  now. 

But  if  not  the  Karoling  line,  who  had  better  claims 
than  Hugh  ?  His  family  had  already  given  two  kings  to 
Gaul  (Eudes,  887-893 ;  Robert,  922-923),  his  of 

father’s  life  had  been  one  long  preparation  Hugh  Capet, 
for  the  change,  and  had  he  willed,  probably  9  " 
it  would  have  occurred  before.  Now  at  least  there  could 
be  no  doubt.  Hugh  Capet  could  depend  upon  the 
suffrages  of  Burgundy  which  was  in  the  hands  of  his 
brother  Eudes,  of  the  metropolitan  Archbishop  of  Rheims, 
lately  estranged  from  Lewis,  and,  above  all,  of  Richard 
the  Norman  duke,  who  had  private  as  well  as  public 
wrongs  to  avenge.  There  were-  some,  indeed,  who 
favoured  Charles,  but  of  these  Aquitaine  was  too  little 
connected  with  France  to  make  its  influence  felt,  and 
Vermandois  was  no  longer  powerful.  The  only  influen¬ 
tial  supporters  of  Charles  were  the  Archbishop  of  Sens 
and  Baldwin  of  Flanders;  when,  therefore,  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Rheims,  asserting  the  elective  character  of  ihc 
crown,  put  the  question  to  the  vote,  the  election  of  Hugh 


64 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Capet  was  carried  by  acclamation.  The 

War  987-89.  V  , 

Charles  dies  in  party  of  Charles,  not  strong  enough  to  gain 
prison,  1001.  eiection,  took  up  arms  in  his  behalf. 

Charles  displayed  the  activity  common  to  his  race,  and 
for  two  years  carried  on  the  struggle  with  considerable 
success,  but  fortune  had  declared  against  the  Karolings, 
and  now  overwhelmed  their  last  representative.  Be¬ 
trayed  by  the  treachery  of  the  Bishop  of  Laon,  whose 
most  sacred  promise  he  had  trusted,  he  and  his  city  were 
handed  over  to  Hugh.  Laon  ceased  for  ever  to  be  a 
capital,  and  Charles  remained  a  prisoner  till  his  death  in 
1001. 

The  revolution  which  was  thus  consummated  was  one 
of  the  utmost  importance  to  France  and  to  Europe.  Its 
importance,  however,  did  not  lie  in  the  election  of  Hugh 
Capet,  but  in  the  permanence  of  his  dynasty. 
Importance  of  "p^g  Karolings  had  been  overthrown,  and 
the  third  dynasty  established  by  a  complica¬ 
tion  of  fraud,  treachery',  and  misfortune,  not  by  conscious 
adherence  to  any  acknowledged  principle.  The  chief 
actors  were  no  doubt  entirely  ignorant  of  the  important 
part  they  were  playing  in  the  history  of  their  country. 
As  far  as  they  were  concerned,  it  was  little  more  than 
one  phase  of  the  petty  struggles  which  had  been  for 
years  distracting  Gaul.  Their  motives,  as  before,  were 
utterly  selfish  and  temporary.  Hugh  Capet  was  king, 
as  Odo  his  great-uncle  and  Robert  his  grandfather  had 
been  before  him,  but  no  one  could  tell  whether  his 
power  would  be  more  lasting  than  theirs ;  certainly  no 
one  saw  the  hidden  forces  at  work  which  were  to  estab¬ 
lish  his  family  firmly  upon  the  throne  for  full  800  years. 
The  princes,  therefore,  were  unconscious  agents  in  this 
eventful  change  ;  for  its  consummation  we  must  look  to. 
other  causes. 


987. 


Richard  the  Fearless. 


65 


In  the  accession,  or  rather  in  the  permanence,  of  the. 
Capetian  dynasty,  we  see  the  rebound  from 
the  principles  upon  which  Charles  the  Great 
had  founded  his  empire.  A  reaction  had  long 
been  operating  to  break  up  that  empire ; 
but  it  is  not  till  now  that  its  effect  is  thor¬ 
oughly  worked  out  as  far  as  France  is  con¬ 
cerned.  The  empire  had  been  founded 
upon  a  false  attempt  at  unity,  against  which 
Nature  herself  cried  out,  and  which  had  no  real  social 
or  internal  basis.  It  was  a  violation  of  all  geographical 
boundaries — not  to  be  lightly  violated,  at  least  in  early 
times.  The  people  he  thus  tried  to  unite  had  absolutely 
no  common  basis  of  nationality,  no  common  interests, 
or  language,  or  social  customs,  none  of  the  bonds  neces¬ 
sary  to  form  a  united  state.  It  was  an  empire  founded 
upon  conquest,  not  upon  the  wishes  of  the  people;  an 
attempt  to  force  a  Teutonic  government  on  Romanized 
Gaul ;  hence  it  was  a  purely  personal  rule.  Nor  was 
this  all.  The  ideas  to  which  it  looked  for  strength  were 
too  complex  for  an  early  state  of  society.  Charles  had 
attempted  to  revive  the  old  imperial  ideas  of  Rome  by 
the  infusion  of  younger  Teutonic  ones.  The  Emperor  of 
Rome,  in  virtue  of  being  head  of  the  senate,  had  been 
looked  upon  as  the  representative  of  the  people  in  all 
things.  He  was  high-priest  as  well  as  emperor.  When 
Christianity  was  made  the  state  religion  by  Constantine 
this  position  of  high-priest  was  continued  under  a  Chris¬ 
tian  form.  Charles  added  to  this  the  elective  character 
of  the  German  king,  and  the  close  connection  with  the 
Church.  Based  on  such  principles  as  these  the  Empire 
was  ill-suited  to  the  temper  of  the  times,  and  as  soon  as 
Charles’s  master  hand  was  removed,  the  disruptive 
forces  set  to  work  and  broke  it  up.  The  attempt  to  form 


Causes  of 
Hugh’s  acces¬ 
sion.  Reac¬ 
tion  against 
ideas  upon 
which  the  em¬ 
pire  of  Charles 
the  Great  had 
been  founded. 
The  weakness 
of  the  Empire. 


66 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


a  Christian  empire  was  reproduced  on  a  more  modest 
but  firmer  basis  by  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  of  Otho  I. 
(962).  In  Gaul  the  same  agencies  began  to  move,  and 
after  a  long  struggle  triumphed  in  the  accession  of  Hugh 
Capet. 

The  natural  limits  of  modern  France  are  the  basins  of 
the  Rhone,  the  Somme,  the  Seine,  the  Loire,  and  the 
Garonne,  which  form  a  network  over  the  whole  of 
France,  now  completed  by  her  system  of  canals.  The 
natural  capital  must  be  found  somewhere  in  the  centre. 
Orleans,  or  Lyons,  or  Rouen  might  dispute  the  claim 
with  Paris,  but  not  Laon,  lying  as  it  did  at  the  eastern 
extremity,  on  no  large  navigable  river,  close  to  the 
German  frontier.  The  fictitious  unity  achieved  by 
Charles  was  gradually  replaced  by  a  more  real  though 
less  ambitious  one,  a  unity  defined  by  natural  bounda¬ 
ries  and  knit  together  by  the  ties  of  common  interest 
and  of  a  common  language.  The  Teutonic  element 
had  never  really  leavened  Gaul.  Its  permanent  influence 
is  bounded  by  an  imaginary  line  drawn  from  Cherbourg 
to  Marseilles;  west  of  that,  fully  half  of  France,  it  did 
not  reach  at  all,  and  even  east  of  it  the  Romance  element 
soon  cast  off  the  Teutonic  superstructure,  broke  off  all 
connection  with  Germany,  and  looked  for  a  national 
dynasty  to  represent  its  national  features.  Of  all  the 
ideas  upon  which  the  Empire  of  Charles  was  based,  one 
alone,  the  elective  character  of  its  king,  it  retained,  and 
that  a  common  one  to  European  nations.  Feudalism 
arose  to  complete  the  idea  of  French  royalty  and  to  fix 
it.  The  dominion  of  Charles  was  a  personal  one. 
Against  this,  in  France  as  elsewhere,  was  formed  the 
idea  of  territorial  dominion.  Earlier  kings  had  been 
kings  of  the  East  and  West  Franks,  Hugh  Capet  was  the 
first  king  of  France.  Thus,  in  every  way,  the  dominion 


987. 


Richard  the  Fearless. 


67 


of  the  Capets  was  the  negation  of  the  principle  upon 
which  the  Empire  been  based ;  and  this  at  once  ex¬ 
plains  their  weakness  and  their  strength.  Their  power 
was  by  no  means  a  personal  one.  They  owed  their  rise 
to  the  centrifugal  tendencies  before  which  the  Empire 
had  fallen.  At  their  accession  royalty  was  at  its  lowest 
ebb.  Their  own  domains  were  no  doubt  more  extensive 
than  those  of  the  later  Karolings.  They  consisted  of 
Picardy,  part  of  Champagne,  the  city  and  county  of 
Paris,  Orleans  and  Chartres ; — a  narrow 
strip  running  north  and  south,  equally  divi-  minions  of 
ded  by  the  river  Seine.  But  their  power  Hl‘sh  Capet' 
over  the  rest  of  France  was  probably  less.  South  of 
the  Loire  their  existence  was  hardly  recognized,  and 
north  of  it  Lotharingia  had  been  finally  given  up  to 
Germany.  The  connection  with  Flanders  was  gradually 
weakened.  The  Duke  of  Normandy  holding  the  very 
keys  of  their  dominions  and  shutting  them  out  com¬ 
pletely  from  the  sea-board  threatened  to  overshadow 
them,  while  their  power  was  further  circumscribed  by 
some  hundred  sovereign  states,  absolute  within  their  own 
dominions  and  owing  a  nominal  allegiance  to  their  over- 
lord  at  Paris,  which  was  often  exchanged  for  an  attitude 
of  open  defiance. 

Whatever  view  we  take  of  the  character  of  the  earlier 
Capetian  kings — whether  with  some  we  consider  them  as 
priest-ridden  weaklings,  or  with  others  declare  them  to  be 
men  of  considerable  ability  and  activity — we  cannot  but 
wonder  how  they  retained  the  throne.  They  had  lost  the 
presumptive  title  of  long  possession,  so  valuable  in  ear¬ 
lier  times.  Their  accession  was  certainly  accompanied 
by  increased  power  among  the  feudatories,  with  whom 
they  were  long  engaged  in  deadly  strife.  Unconscious 
of  the  subtle  forces  which  were  supporting  them,  their 


68 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


lives  were  spent  in  petty  struggles,  until, 

1108—1137.  wjtk  l6wjs  vi.,  the  monarchy  awoke  to  find 
that  France  had  grown  meanwhile,  and  firmly  fixed 
them  on  the  throne. 

We  have  dwelt  upon  the  important  struggle  which 
,  ended  in  the  final  triumph  of  Paris  because 

Importance  ,  ,  ,  ,  . 

of  this  revo-  the  Norman  dukes  had  been  the  primary 

Norman  agents  in  the  revolution,  and  because  future 
history.  Norman  history  is  deeply  influenced  by  it. 

Since  the  days  of  Rollo,  Norman  history  had  formed  an 
unbroken  thread  in  the  tissue  of  the  history  of  France. 
As  long  as  the  Norman  dukes  remained  true  to  the 
Karolings  they  were  safe ;  but  when  Richard  finally  sided 
with  Hugh  of  Paris,  their  death  knell  was  sounded,  and 
it  was  only  a  question  of  time  as  to  the  exact  moment 
when  the  event  should  be  consummated.  Thus  it  was 
the  Normans  who  had  made  Gaul  France,  and  Paris 
owes  her  position  as  capital  of  modern  France  above  all 
to  their  agency.  The  effect  on  Normandy,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  fully  as  great.  Till  now  the  Normans  had  been 
hardly  accepted  as  Christian  brethren  by  their  neigh¬ 
bours;  they  were  hated  while  they  were  feared,  and 
branded  with  the  name  of  pirates.  Henceforth  they  gain 
a  recognized  and  important  position  as  Frenchmen.  In 
Normandy  the  best  French  qualities  appear:  the  viva¬ 
city,  the  impulsiveness,  the  cleverness  of  the  Romanized 
Celt  seem  to  have  gained  strength  from  the  courage, 
the  high  spirit  of  independence,  the  perseverance,  the 
chivalry  of  the  Scandinavians.  Nowhere  else  is  the 
Scandinavian  influence  so  great,  nowhere  else  is  it  so 
permanent.  Elsewhere  they  become  rapidly  lost  amid 
the  surrounding  nationality,  and  lose  their  predominance ; 
in  Normandy  the  union  of  the  Scandinavian  nobles  with 
the  Fiench  lower  classes  produces  a  famous  and  pecu- 


987. 


Richard  the  Fearless. 


69 


liar  type  of  men,  the  best  of  the  French — the  conquerors 
and  wise  kings  of  Sicily,  the  powerful  conquerors  and 
organizers  of  England,  the  flower  of  chivalry  and  the 
heroes  of  the  Crusades.  Here  the  langne  d'  oil  assumes 
its  greatest  polish,  here  rise  the  first  of  North-French 
poets,  here  the  finest  of  the  early  French  cathedrals 
are  built. 

Lastly,  the  relations  between  Normandy  and  Paris, 
inaugurated  by  the  revolution  which  we  have  been  con¬ 
sidering,  deeply  affected  the  future  history  of  Normandy 
as  well  as  that  of  France.  Richard  II.  had  commended 
himself  to  Hugh,  the  great  Duke  of  Paris.  That  duchy 
had  now  grown  into  a  kingdom.  The  vassalage  conti¬ 
nued,  but  it  was  due  rather  to  Hugh  Capet  as  duke  than 
as  king  of  France;  and  while  the  Capetian  kings  in 
later  days  ill  requited  the  assistance  they  had  received 
from  their  Norman  vassals,  the  Normans  were  ever 
ready  to  claim  their  independence  and  reduce  their  vas¬ 
salage  to  the  narrowest  limits. 

With  this  Capetian  revolution,  in  which  Richard  had 
borne  so  prominent  a  part,  his  public  life  ended,  and  the 
remaining  years  of  his  eventful  reign  were  spent  in  quiet 
at  Rouen.  Nothing  disturbed  the  internal  peace  of  the 
duchy  if  we  except  a  short  war  with  Eng- 

.  .  .  War  with 

land.  This  is  said  to  have  been  caused  by  England, 
the  shelter  offered  by  Richard  to  the  Danes, 
who,  under  Swegen,  king  of  Denmark,  and  son  of  Ha- 
rald  Blaatand,  were  again  beginning  to  trouble  England 
and  entering  on  that  political  conquest  which  culminated 
in  the  establishment  of  Canute  upon  the  English  throne. 
The  war  was  soon  put  an  end  to  through  the  mediation 
of  the  Pope,  and  is  important  only  as  forming  the  first 
instance  in  which  the  Norman  dukes  were  brought  into 
direct  connection  with  the  English  kings. 


70 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Richard 

marries 

Guenora 

according  to 

Christian 

rites. 


Effect  of  his 
reign. 


Richard’s  marriage  with  Emma  had  been  unfruitful, 
and  his  children  by  Guenora,  a  woman  of  unknown 
lineage,  were  looked  upon  as  illegitimate  by 
the  Church,  since  he  had  been  married  to 
her  after  the  Danish  fashion.  He  now 
married  her  according  to  Christian  rites, 
and,  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  his 
children  became  legitimatized.  Of  these  Richard  suc¬ 
ceeded  him,  and  his  two  daughters  subsequently  married 
Ethelred  the  Unready  of  England  and  Geoffrey  of 
Brittany.  Thus,  having  settled  the  question  of  succession, 
Richard’s  work  was  done.  His  reign  had  been  a  long 
and  troubled  one.  Succeeding  at  the  age  of  ten  to  his 
dukedom  suddenly  bereaved  of  its  master 
by  a  violent  death,  and  threatened  by  foes 
and  dangers,  he  had  successfully  weathered 
the  crisis,  established  the  Norman  family  on  the  soil, 
and  taken  the  leading  part  in  the  change  of  dynasty 
which  was  so  deeply  to  colour  the  future  history  of  his 
race.  He  had  outlived  all  his  reigning  con¬ 
temporaries  and  seen  a  new  generation 
arise,  and  yet  when  his  long  reign  of  fifty- 
three  years  was  closed  he  was  only  sixty-three.  His 
character  is  marked  by  all  his  father’s  best  qualities 
without  his  weaknesses.  Judged  by  the 
standard  of  to-day  the  morality  of  his  pri¬ 
vate  life  would  not  stand  the  test,  but  no  act 
of  public  dishonesty  or  faithlessness  is  recorded  against 
him,  and  his  great  abilities,  softened  by  urbanity  and 
courtesy,  gained  him  the  love  and  esteem  of  his  people. 
Within  the  duchy  his  reign  is  one  of  quiet  seed  time  and 
growth.  Norman  nobility  began  to  arise  ;  there  are  few 
noble  houses  whose  lineage  we  can  trace  earlier  than  his 
reign ;  the  feudalizing  process  was  advancing  and  ac- 


His  death. 
996. 


His  charac¬ 
ter. 


997- 


Richard  the  Good. 


7i 


quiring  definite  form.  Nor  were  there  wanting  signs  of 
nascent  prosperity  among  the  middle  classes.  The  Nor¬ 
mans  took  readily  to  trade,  and  gladly  welcomed  the 
industrious  Fleming,  whose  fame  as  a  manufacturer  was 
already  known.  The  position  of  the  burghers  was  ap¬ 
parently  a  solid  one.  Annual  mercantile  fairs  existed, 
and  Falaise  was  already  noted  for  its  tanneries  and 
woollen  manufactures.  The  latter  part  of  Richard’s 
reign  was  spent  in  organizing  his  dukedom,  issuing  the 
first  coinage  of  the  Norman  mint,  and  in  restoring 
Fecamp  and  other  monastic  establishments  which  had 
been  suffered  to  fall  into  decay  during  the  troubled 
times  which  had  preceded.  In  every  way  the  Nor¬ 
mandy  of  later  times  was  arising,  and,  if  Rollo  is  to  be 
considered  the  first  founder  of  the  power  of  Danish 
Normandy,  Richard,  the  last  of  the  Danish,  the  first  of 
the  French  Norman  dukes,  is  the  second  founder  of  the 
dukedom. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

RICHARD  THE  GOOD. 

By  the  death  of  his  father,  Richard  the  Second,  the 
Good,  succeeded  at  a  somewhat  early  age.  Scarcely  was 
he  on  the  ducal  throne  when  he  had  to  meet  „  , 

Richard  the 

a  threatening  movement  on  the  part  of  the  Good, 
peasants.  It  is  not  often  in  the  history  of  peasants, 
that  date  that  we  have  an  opportunity  of  997 • 

judging  of  the  condition  of  the  lower  classes.  The 
scarcity  of  all  written  records,  and  the  fact  that  the 
chroniclers  wrote  only  for  princes  and  their  courtiers, 
have  alike  contributed  to  this.  Hence,  little  as  we  know 


72 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


of  this  peasant  revolt,  it  naturally  arrests  our  attention. 
We  have  seen  that  in  the  days  of  Richard  the  Fearless 
aristocratic  ideas  were  growing,  and  that  the  feudalizing 
process — that  is,  the  custom  of  commending  oneself  to 
an  over  lord — had  already  commenced.  Under  his  son 
these  ideas  increased.  Brought  up  a  thorough  French¬ 
man,  he  had  imbibed  the  aristocratic  and  feudal  senti¬ 
ments  which  were  arising  in  France,  and  a  later  writer 
informs  us  that  he  refused  to  have  any  but  gentlemen 
about  his  person,  while  the  possessions  carved  out  of  the 
ducal  domain  for  the  numerous  illegitimate  children  of 
the  late  duke  increased  the  number  of  the  petty  lords. 
This,  too,  is  the  date  of  the  rise  of  baronial  castles.  Eu¬ 
rope  probably  first  learnt  the  art  of  building  them  to  pro¬ 
tect  themselves  against  the  Northmen,  the  Hungarians, 
and  Saracens,  whose  intermittent  ravages  had  been  com¬ 
mon  for  the  last  two  centuries;  and  we  may  be  sure 
that  the  Normans  would  not  be  slow  to  follow  the  lead, 
and  to  cover  the  country  with  these  defences  of  the 
strong.  Hence  aristocratic  privilege  increased,  while 
numerous  grants  made  to  the  courtly  adherents  of  the 
duke  multiplied  the  numbers  of  the  landlords,  and 
brought  them  into  close  connection  with  the  peasantry. 
The  peasant  class  in  Normandy  was  formed  chiefly  of 
the  old  Romance  population,  who,  at  some  time  subse¬ 
quent  to  the  first  settlement  of  the  Northmen,  had  fallen 
into  the  class  of  “  villeins”  holding  small  plots  of  land 
for  which  they  owed  service  to  their  superior.  Elsewhere 
in  France  the  condition  of  the  lower  classes  was  probably 
very  wretched ;  they  were  harassed  by  continual  war, 
agriculture  was  in  its  infancy,  and  there  was  no  skill  to 
struggle  against  adverse  seasons.  The  increase  of  pesti¬ 
lence  and  famine  was  the  sad  result  ;  forty-eight  such 
visitations  are  recorded  between  987  and  1057.  Pro- 


997- 


Richard  the  Good¬ 


'll 


bably  the  condition  of  the  peasants  in  Normandy  was 
not  so  bad;  a  man  must  have  bread  before  he  can 
become  a  politician,  and  the  peasants  at  this  time  seem 
to  have  had  some  ideas  of  self-government.  To  men  in 
such  a  position  the  growth  of  aristocratic  privilege,  the 
multiplication  of  landlords,  and  the  advance  of  the 
theory  of  lordship,  would  be  peculiarly  galling.  This 
was  the  probable  reason  for  the  movement,  which  was 
most  likely  joined  by  some  of  Scandinavian  descent 
and  some  small  holders  irritated  at  the  growth  of 
aristocratic  privilege.  Retaining  perhaps  from  Roman 
times  some  traces  of  local  self-government  by  which  the 
decemvirs  were  elected  in  each  “pagus”  to  form  a 
municipal  council,  these  peasants  began  to  assemble 
and  discuss  their  wrongs.  The  author  of  the  “  Roman 
de  Rou,”  writing  in  the  twelfth  century,  thus  sums  up 
their  complaints  :  “  The  nobles  do  us  nought  but  ill,' and 
we  gain  no  profit  from  our  labours.  Our  days  are  spent 
in  toil  and  fatigue,  our  beasts  are  seized  for  dues  and 
services,  our  goods  wasted  by  continual  suits.  We  have 
no  safety  against  our  lords,  and  no  oath  is  binding  on 
them.  Why  should  we  not  shake  off  all  the  evil  ? — are 
we  not  men  as  they?  Dare  we  to  do  and  dare:  a  good 
heart  is  all  we  want.  Let  us  then  unite,  and  if  they 
should  make  war  upon  us,  have  we  not  thirty  or  forty 
hardy  peasants  ready  to  fight  with  club  and  flail  to  each 
knight  ?  Let  us  only  learn  to  resist,  and  we  shall  be 
free  to  cut  our  own  firewood,  to  fish  and  hunt,  to  do  our 
will  in  river,  field,  and  wood.”  Encouraged  by  these 
harangues,  they  deputed  representatives  to  a  general 
assembly,  and  made  a  “commune,’’  says  the  same 
author,  to  talk  over  their  wrongs  and  discuss  the  means 
of  resistance.  The  writer,  a  clerk  of  the  Royal  Chancery 
to  Henry  I.,  would  not  be  likely  to  paint  their  motives 


74 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


or  their  actions  in  favourable  colours.  From  this,  an 
enemy’s  account,  we  may  therefore  fairly  conclude  that 
the  movement  was  something  more  than  a  meaningless 
savage  revolt  against  all  order.  We  meet  with  no  such 
movement  in  England  till  the  time  of  Richard  I.,  when 
London  was  threatened  by  something  of  the  same  sort 
under  William  Fitzosbert.  That  was,  however,  only  a 
municipal  movement,  confined  to  the  city  itself;  and  for 
the  true  counterpart  of  this  we  must  wait  till  the  rebellion 
of  Wat  Tyler  in  Richard  the  Second’s  reign  in  1381. 
Like  that,  however,  it  was  doomed  to  failure.  It  was 
looked  upon  as  a  dangerous  revolt  against  society,  and 
was  dealt  with  accordingly.  Richard,  getting  news  of 
it  before  it  had  gained  a  head,  crushed  it  out  with  mer¬ 
ciless  cruelty,  and  the  chroniclers  of  the  day  recount 
with  brutal  levity  how  the  rebels  were  scourged ;  their 
eyes  plucked  out ;  their  heads  chopped  off,  and  distri¬ 
buted  as  a  warning  amongst  their  neighbours.  We  hear 
no  more  of  peasant  revolts  in  Norman  history,  but  it 
seems  to  have  borne  its  fruit.  When  we  reach  the  era 
of  the  written  evidence,  we  find  the  villeinage  of  Nor¬ 
mandy  lighter  than  elsewhere,  personal  servitude  did 
not  exist,  while  the  villein-holders  of  the  Channel 
Islands  seem  from  very  early  times  to  have  enjoyed  a 
freedom  as  great  as  that  of  our  yeomen. 

Master  of  his  subjects  at  home,  the  Norman  duke 
rapidly  increased  in  power  abroad.  This 
will  be  best  appreciated  by  considering  the 
foreign  relations  of  the  duke  to  the  various 
countries  which  surrounded  him.  With  the 
German  Otho  he  had  little  to  do.  The  Normans  had  now 
Slight  rela-  become  Frenchmen;  and  the  dynastic  quar- 
tions  be-  re]s  between  Germany  and  France,  rudely 

tween  Ger-  .  . 

many  and  settled  by  the  accession  of  the  Capetian 

France. 


Foreign  re¬ 
lations  of 
Richard  the 
Good. 


1003-1020. 


Richard  the  Good. 


75 


dynasty,  were  at  an  end.  Each  country  was  now  carrying 
on  its  work  of  consolidation  until  they  should  be  again 
drawn  into  conflict  as  the  age  of  political  contests  drew 
on. 


France. 

Richard  the  Good  remained  true  to  the  policy  inaugu¬ 
rated  by  his  father  in  connecting  himself  closely  with 
his  over-lord,  the  Capetian  king.  This  policy 
was  dictated  by  identity  of  interest.  Nor-  r>anCc 

mandy,  as  well  as  France,  was  surrounded 
by  dangerous  neighbours.  The  Duke  of  Burgundy,  the 
Count  of  Anjou,  and  the  Counts  of  Chartres  and  Flan¬ 
ders,  all  of  them  jealous  of  the  growing  power  of  the 
two  upstarts,  the  King  of  Paris  and  the  Duke  of  the 
Normans. 

The  Normans  had  now  become  thoroughly  French  in 
interests  and  ideas,  and  if  the  Dukes  of  Normandy  were 
the  chief  mainstay  of  the  king,  the  alliance  of  Paris 
was  nearly  as  valuable  to  the  Norman  dukes.  In  fact, 
their  destinies  were  to  advance  hand  in  hand  until 
their  relations  should  be  reversed  by  the  overwhelming 
power  of  the  Norman  vassal. 

Thus  it  is  that  in  all  the  wars  of  Robert,  who  had  now 
succeeded  Hugh  Capet,  whether  against  Flanders  or 
against  Burgundy,  we  find  Richard  lending  valuable  as¬ 
sistance,  while  the  King  of  Paris  acts  as  mediator  in 
some  of  Richard’s  quarrels. 

Two  of  these  alone  are  of  sufficient  importance  to  be 
noticed. 

The  Burgtmdian  Wars. 

Burgundy,  destined  ever  to  be  a  thorn  in  the  side  of 
France,  at  this  time  called  for  the  interference  of  Robert. 


The  Normans  in  Europe.  a.  d. 

The  duchy  of  Burgundy  had  been  secured  to 
Henry,  brother  of  Hugh  Capet.  On  his  death 
he  had  left  it  to  his  stepson,  Otho  William, 
a  Lombard,  thus  violating  the  rights  of  the 
over-lord,  the  King  of  Paris,  to  whom  it 
should  have  reverted.  Burgundy  had  been  too  long 
regarded  a  fief  of  the  kingdom  of  Paris  for  this  to  be 
overlooked,  and  Robert,  gaining  material  assistance 
from  Richard,  asserted  his  claim  to  the  fief.  Otho,  how¬ 
ever,  was  supported  by  the  nobles  and  clergy,  and  an 
obstinate  war  of  twelve  years  ensued  before  Burgundy 
was  restored  to  the  Capetian  king. 

Otho  himself  subsequently  gained  the  county  of  Bur¬ 
gundy  (Franche-Comte),  part  of  his  mother's  inheri¬ 
tance,  which,  with  its  connected  territories  of  Alsace, 
Lyons,  Dauphine,  and  Provence,  henceforth  definitely 
belonged  to  the  German  Empire. 

Eudes  II.  of  Blois. 

The  Dominions  of  Thibault  of  Blois,  the  old  enemy 
of  the  Kings  of  Paris,  were  now  in  the  hands  of  his 
,  grandson  Eudes,  second  of  that  name.  Hold- 

Wars  with  . 

Eudes  of  ing  Chartres,  Champagne,  and  Brie,  as  well 
as  Blois,  he  caused  considerable  apprehen 
sion  to  his  over-lord  at  Paris.  Not  content  with  these  ex¬ 
tensive  and  rich  domains  he  seized  Melun, 
lying  on  the  left  of  the  Seine,  to  the  south¬ 
east  of  Paris,  and  important  as  an  outpost  by  which  his 
power  could  be  restrained. 

Once  more  Robert  summoned  Richard,  and  by  his 
trusty  aid  regained  this  important  frontier  town.  Subse¬ 
quently,  however,  Richard  changed  his 
ioi 5-1020.  p0jjCy(  an(jj  true  t0  tjle  instincts  0f  his  race, 

which  led  the  Normans  to  detect  the  signs  of  future 


70 


Richard 
assists  Ro¬ 
bert  in  his 
Burgundian 
Wars. 
1003-1015. 


1013-1016. 


Richard  the  Good. 


77 


greatness,  connected  himself  with  the  rising  house  of 
Blois.  Eudes  married  his  sister  Maude, 
and  a  short  quarrel  which  ensued  as  to  the 
possession  of  the  County  of  Dreux,  her 
dower,  was  compromised.  Eudes  retained 
possession  of  this  important  frontier  to  the 
south  of  Normandy,  and  the  subsequent 
marriage  of  his  son  Stephen  to  Adeliza,  the 
daughter  of  Richard,  cemented  still  closer  the  alliance 
of  Normandy  with  that  house  which  was  eventually  to 
give  a  king  to  England. 

Nor  was  this  the  only  important  alliance  made  by 
Richard.  With  the  growing  power  of  Brittany — separa¬ 
ted  from  Normandy  only  by  the  small  _  , ,  , 
stream  of  the  Coesnon — he  connected  him-  liancewith 

self  by  a  double  marriage.  He  himself  Lnttan>- 
married  Judith  of  Brittany,  sister  of  Geoffrey  Count  of 
Rennes,  who  had  established  his  supremacy  over  the 
country  and  gained  the  title  of  duke,  and  Haduisa  his 
sister  became  Geoffrey’s  wife.  When  Geoffrey  died,  his 
sons  Alan  and  Odo  fell  under  the  guardian-  „T  , 

Ship  of  their  uncle  and  suzerain.  Alice,  gundy  and 
another  daughter,  married  Renaud,  Count  Flanders- 
of  Burgundy ;  while  another,  Eleanor,  married  the 
powerful  Baldwin  “the  bearded,"  of  Flanders. 

These  alliances  attest  the  importance  of  the  Normans 
abroad;  but  there  is  one  more  to  mention, 
which  first  brought  Normandy  and  England  England 
into  close  relation  with  one  another,  and 
was  fraught  with  most  momentous  consequences  to  them 
both. 

England  at  this  date,  under  the  incapable  rule  of 
Ethelred  “  the  Unready  ’’  or  “  Lack-counsel,’’  was  once 
more  being  threatened  by  the  Danes  These  Danish 

c 


Alliance  of 
Richard 
and  Eudes 
who  marries 
Maude, 
sister  of 
Richard, 
and  gains 
Dreux. 


78 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Weakness 
of  England 
under 

Ethelred  II. 

978-1016. 

Renewed 

Danish 

invasions. 


invasions  no  longer  took  the  same  charac¬ 
ter  as  the  former  inroads.  The  earlier  were 
those  of  people  driven  out  from  their 
northern  home,  and  invading  England  for 
the  purpose  of  permanently  settling  in  the 
country. 

But  now  the  three  kingdoms  of  Norway,  Sweden,  and 
Denmark  had  become  settled  and  organized,  and  the 
latter,  under  the  powerful  Swegen,  was  engaged  in  a 
political  conquest  of  England  Ushered  in  by  some 
piratical  attacks,  the  Danes  in  the  year  994  began  de¬ 
finitely  to  threaten  England.  * 

Disabled  by  the  treachery  of  his  ealdormen.his  people 
overawed,  as  all  Christendom  was  at  that  time  by  the 
anticipation  of  the  millennium,  his  country  showing,  as 
she  ever  did,  the  absence  of  a  truly  national 
spirit,  the  difficulties  of  Ethelred  were  great, 
and  he  was  not  the  man  to  overcome  them. 
He  first  resorted  to  the  pitiful  and  useless  expedient  of 
j.  h  buying  his  enemies  off,  and  then,  free  from 

war  with  immediate  apprehension,  engaged  in  a  need- 
Normandy.  iess  war  wjtj1  Richard  of  Normandy. 

We  have  seen  before  how  in  991  he  had  quarreled 
with  Richard  the  Fearless  on  account  of  the  countenance 
given  by  him  to  his  Danish  foes,  and  this  was  probably 
the  cause  of  the  present  war.  It  failed,  and 
then  Ethelred,  anxious  to  gain  the  alliance 
of  the  powerful  Norman  duke,  made  peace 
with  him  and  married  his  sister  Emma. 
This  marriage,  so  far  as  Ethelred  was  con¬ 
cerned,  did  not  serve  him  much.  Any  hopes  he  may 
have  had  of  material  assistance  from  his  brother-in-law 
were  misplaced.  Richard  had  enough  to  do  at  home, 
and,  unless  he  had  felt  inclined  to  engage  in  the  war  a^ 


Difficulties 
of  Ethelred. 


Ethelred 
makes  peace 
and  marries 
Emma, 
sister  of 
Richard  the 
Good.  1002. 


1013-1016. 


Richard  the  Good. 


79 


a  sort  of  crusade  against  the  Northern  Danes,  the  affair 
was  none  of  his.  Indeed,  it  is  probable  that  the  connec¬ 
tion  of  the  Normans  with  their  old  kindred  was  too 


abiding  to  allow  of  this.  Richard,  therefore, 
throughout  the  Danish  wars  preserved  a 
strict  neutrality.  When  Ethelred  was  driven 
from  his  kingdom  by  Swegen,  he  offered 
him  and  his  wife  and  children  an  asylum  at 


Ethelred 
driven  from 
England  by 
the  Danes 
seeks  refuge 
at  Richard's 
court,  1013. 


his  court,  but  that  was  all.  In  the  brief  but  heroic  strug¬ 
gle  of  Edmund  Ironside,  the  son  of  Ethel-  Canute 


red  by  a  former  marriage,  he  took  no  part ; 
and  when  at  last  Canute,  the  son  of  Swegen, 
established  his  kingdom  in  England,  he 
continued  on  friendly  terms  with  him,  and 


conquers 
England, 
and  marries 
widow  of 
Ethelred, 
1016. 


allowed  Emma,  the  widow  of  the  unfortunate  Ethelred, 


to  marry  the  usurper  of  his  throne.  Nevertheless  this 


marriage  was  of  the  greatest  importance  to  England. 
With  it  began  the  connection  of  England  and  Normandy, 
which  eventually  led  to  the  Norman  Con¬ 
quest.  The  sons  of  Emma,  the  yEthelings  Importance 

1  .  0  of  the  mar- 

Alfred  and  Edward,  driven  from  their  Eng-  riage  of 
lish  homes,  found  refuge  in  the  Norman  lm‘1' 
court,  and  here  Edward  imbibed  those  Norman  tastes 


which  led  him  to  introduce  Normans  into  England  when 
he  regained  his  ancestral  throne.  Here  he  contracted 


that  friendship  with  William  the  Bastard  which  hurried 
on  the  downfall  of  his  race. 


Thus,  then,  on  all  sides  the  Norman  power  increased 
during  the  prosperous  reign  of  Richard  the  Good.  Nor 
is  this  more  conspicuous  in  the  political  history  of  his 
country  than  in  the  individual  energy  of  his  subjects. 
We  have  seen  the  kingdom  of  Denmark  again  showing 
signs  of  warlike  vigour,  and  again  disturbing  England 
with  her  invasions. 


So 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


It  is  remarkable  that  Normandy  itself  at 
this  date  witnessed  a  similar  movement. 
Hitherto  the  Normans  had  been  fully  em¬ 
ployed  in  settling  themselves  in  Normandy 
and  in  establishing  their  power  in  France.  But  now  that 
their  power  was  consolidated,  their  country  became  too 
small  for  their  energies,  perhaps  unable  to  support  the  ra¬ 
pidly  increasing  population,  and  the  old  spirit  of  adventure 
and  distant  conquest  was  aroused.  In  fact  we  have  arrived 
at  the  period  when  Normandy  itself  became  the  starting 
place  for  those  expeditions  which  may  be  well  said  to 
culminate  in  the  Norman  Conquest.  That,  however, 
was  undertaken  by  the  duke  himself.  Those  which  now 
demand  our  attention  were  the  result  of  individual  enter¬ 
prise.  Spain  first  attracted  them,  and  thither 
Roger deToes-  Roger  de  Toesny  sailed  to  war  against  the 

ny  in  Spain,  0  .. 

1018.  Normans  Moors,  and  to  found,  if  possible,  a  domin¬ 
ion  for  himself.  This,  however,  had  no 
lasting  results.  Far  more  important  is  the  settlement  of 
the  Normans  at  Aversa  in  Italy. 

In  the  eleventh  century  many  of  the  Normans  seem 
to  have  wandered  away  into  Italy,  partly  as  pilgrims,  to 
visit  the  sacred  shrines,  but  ever  ready  to  engage  in  any 
promising  enterprise  which  might  offer.  Often  called  in 
by  the  princes  of  the  south  of  Italy  as  mer- 
Settlement  at  cenaries  in  their  quarrels  with  one  another, 

Aversa,  1029.  1 

they  finally  were  allowed  to  settle  at  Aversa 
by  the  Duke  of  Naples,  and  the  town  was  built  and  for¬ 
tified  for  them  as  an  outpost  against  Capua.  _ 

Their  character  is  thus  described  by  a  contemporary 
historian  of  Italy: — “The  Normans  are  a  cunning  and 
revengeful  people;  eloquence  and  dissimulation  appear 
to  be  their  hereditary  qualities.  They  can  stoop  to 
flatter;  but  unless  they  are  curbed  by  the  restraint  of 


Normandy  be¬ 
comes  the  cen¬ 
tre  of  a  renew¬ 
ed  spirit  of  en¬ 
terprise. 


1029-1043-  The  Norman  Settlement  in  Italy. 


81 


law  they  indulge  the  licentiousness  of  nature  and  pas¬ 
sion,  and  in  their  eager  search  for  wealth  and  dominion 
they  despise  whatever  they  possess  and  hope  whatever 
they  desire.  Arms  and  horses,  the  luxury  of  dress,  the 
exercises  of  hawking  and  hunting,  are  the  delight  of  the 
Normans;  but  on  pressing  occasions  they  can  endure 
with  incredible  patience  the  inclemency  of  every  climate, 
and  the  toil  and  abstinence  of  a  military  life.” 

The  condition  of  the  south  of  Italy  at  the  time  was 
this.  South  of  Rome  lay  the  territories  of  c  f 

the  independent  Counts  of  Naples  and  the  the  south  of 
republic  of  Amalfi.  South  of  these  again  Ital>' 
the  Greek  theme  of  Lombardy  included  all  that  part  of 
the  peninsula  south  of  a  line  drawn  from  Mount  Garga- 
nus  to  the  bay  of  Salerno.  This,  recovered 
by  Basil  the  Macedonian,  still  survived 
under  its  catapan  or  governor,  the  last  remnant  of  the 
Eastern  Empire. 

Sicily,  in  the  hands  of  the  Moslem,  formed  part  of  the 
kingdom  of  Tunis,  and  had  long  been  an  object  of  desire 
to  the  Eastern  Emperor.  In  the  year  1038, 

Maniaces,  Catapan  of  Lombardy,  excited 
by  the  internal  divisions  which  weakened 
the  power  of  the  Arabs,  called  in  the  aid  of 
the  Normans,  and  by  their  assistance  re¬ 
gained  at  last  the  greater  portion  of  the 
island.  Maniaces,  however,  by  his  avarice 
and  his  ingratitude,  alienated  his  new  found  allies,  and 
a  quarrel  ensuing  as  to  the  division  of  the  spoil,  the 
Normans  returned  two  years  afterwards  to 

J  conquer 

avenge  the  injury  by  attacking  Apulia.  Apulia, 

The  Greeks  were  defeated  in  a  battle  on  104  ’  43' 
the  plains  of  Canna?,  and  after  two  years  a  few  towns 
alone  remained  to  the  Emperor  of  the  East. 


Normans, 
called  in  by 
the  Greeks 
of  Apulia, 
conquer 
Sicily. 

They  turn 
against  their 
allies  and 


82 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


The  Normans,  masters  of  most  of  Apulia,  organized 
themselves  into  an  aristocratic  republic,  consisting  of 
twelve  Counts,  elected  by  popular  suffrage.  Amalfi 
was  their  capital;  here  the  Counts  dwelt,  and  adminis¬ 
tered  their  affairs  in  military  council.  The  president  of 
this  remarkable  republic  was  William  of  Hauteville,  son 
of  one  Tancred,  who,  with  his  brothers  Drogo  and 
Humphrey,  had  left  their  home  in  Normandy  in  search 
of  foreign  enterprise. 

The  existence  of  this  new  power  raised  the  jealousy 
of  both  East  and  West.  In  1049  a  league  was  formed 
between  the  Emperor  of  the  East,  Henry  III. 
twoSEm°f  Emperor  of  the  West,  and  the  Pope  to  drive 

^erors  and  the  Normans  from  the  soil  of  Italy.  But  the 

°pe,  1049  Emperor  of  the  East  was  called  off  by  more 
imminent  dangers  at  home,  Henry  III.  was  engaged  in 
German  affairs,  and  Leo  IX.  was  left  single-handed  to 
oppose  the  formidable  Normans  with  a  handful  of 
German  soldiers.  The  Normans  offered  terms  which 
were  contemptuously  rejected,  and  a  battle 
ensued  at  Civitella.  Here  the  papal  squa¬ 
drons  were  routed  by  the  superior  cavalry 
of  the  Normans,  and  Leo  IX.  himself  was 
taken  captive.  The  Normans  had  all  along 
professed  themselves  to  be  unwilling  to  fight 
against  the  father  of  Christendom,  and  now 
adopting  the  attitude  of  suppliants  before 
their  captive,  they  consented  to  hold  Apulia  as  a  fief  of 
the  Holy  See,  the  Pope  satisfying  his  scruples  by  the 
consideration  that  their  dominions  were  included  in  the 
supposed  gift  of  Constantine  to  the  Popes  of  that  day. 

The  Normans  really  received  more  than  they  gave. 
By  this  act  of  the  Pope  they  gained  a  recognized  posi¬ 
tion  amongst  the  powers  of  Italy,  and  their  future 


Battle  of 
Civitella. 
Leo  IX. 
taken 
risoner. 
ormans 
consent  to 
hold  Apulia 
as  a  fief  of 
the  Holy 
See,  1053. 


Pr 

N- 


I053_i°6o-  The  Norman  Settlement  in  Italy.  83 


alliance  with  papal  interests  was  dictated  by  sound 
policy. 

The  office  of  President  or  first  Count,  after  having 
been  held  by  William,  Drogo,  and  Humphrey  in  turn, 
passed  to  Robert  Guiscard  (the  Wise),  an¬ 
other  brother  of  this  prolific  family.  The  Guiscard 
fortunes  of  the  famous  Robert  Guiscard  re¬ 
mind  us  somewhat  of  those  of  his  more  powerful  but 
scarcely  more  illustrious  contemporary,  William  the 
Bastard,  the  conqueror  of  England. 

Conspicuous  amongst  his  followers  for  his  strength 
and  grace  of  mien,  Robert  had  signally  distinguished 
himself  at  the  battle  of  Civitella.  In  the  wiles  of  diplo¬ 
macy  he  was  the  match  of  the  clever  intriguers  of  the 
South,  while  his  frankness  and  open-heartedness  earned 
him  the  affection  of  his  followers.  His  insatiable  ambi¬ 
tion  led  him  to  the  highest  flights  of  enterprise,  in  which 
he  was  checked  by  few  feelings  of  justice  or  of  humanity. 
Like  many  of  his  race  he  was  avaricious  and  cruel;  but 
these  passions  were  subordinate  to  his  lust  for  power, 
and  his  acts  were  those  of  the  far-seeing  but  unscru¬ 
pulous  statesman  marching  directly  to  his  goal,  not 
merely  prompted  by  wantonness.  To  him  rather  than 
to  his  brothers  is  due  the  greatness  of  the  Normans  in 
Italy ;  and  while  his  countryman  Duke  William  was 
adding  the  crown  of  England  to  his  ducal  possessions, 
Robert  succeeded  in  carving  out  for  himself  a  noble 
principality  in  the  sunny  South. 

During  the  life  of  his  brother  Humphrey,  his  restless 
and  ambitious  spirit  had  been  a  cause  of  anxiety,  and  as 
long  as  Humphrey  lived  Robert  was  little  better  than  a 
state  prisoner.  On  Humphrey’s  death,  however,  the 
tender  age  of  his  children  unfitted  them  for  command, 
and  Robert,  gaining  the  suffrages  of  his  people,  was 


84 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


a.  D. 


Duke  of 
Apulia. 
1060. 


Count  of  Apu-  created  Count  of  Apulia  and  general  of  the 

Jia.  1054-1080.  x  0 

republic. 

*  Not  content  with  his  position,  he  completed  the  con¬ 
quest  of  Apulia  and  Calabria,  extorted  from  the  hands  of 
Pope  Nicholas  the  ducal  title,  and  hence¬ 
forth  styled  himself  “by  the  grace  of  God 
and  St.  Peter,  Duke  of  Apulia,  Calabria, 
and  hereafter  of  Sicily.”  The  limits  of  his  territory  in 
Italy  corresponded  with  those  of  the  subse- 
Extent  of  quent  kingdom  of  Naples.  It  was  com- 

his  territory'.  t.  o  r 

posed  of  the  Greek  provinces  of  Calabria 
and  Apulia,  the  Lombard  principality  of  Salerno,  the 
republic  of  Amalfi,  and  the  inland  dependencies  of  Bene- 
venturn,  that  city  being  retained  by  the  Roman  pontiff. 

The  medical  and  philosophical  schools  of 
Wealth  and  Salerno,  long  renowned  in  Italy,  added 
lustre  to  his  kingdom ;  and  the  trade  of 
Amalfi,  the  earliest  of  the  Italian  commercial  cities, 
extending  to  Africa,  Arabia,  India,  with  affiliated  colo¬ 
nies  in  Constantinople,  Antioch,  Jerusalem,  and  Alexan¬ 
dria,  enriched  his  ample  domain.  Excelling  in  the  art 
of  navigation,  Amalfi  is  said  to  have  discovered  the 
compass.  Under  her  Norman  dukes  she  held  the 
position  of  queen  of  Italian  commerce,  until  the  rise  of 
the  more  famous  cities  of  Pisa,  Genoa,  and  Venice. 

The  conquest  of  Sicily  was  entrusted  by  Robert  to 
Roger,  his  youngest  brother,  the  twelfth  son  of  Tancred 
of  Hauteville,  a  man  of  like  talents  and 
Sicif>UeSt  °f  ambition. 

by  Roger.  Undertaken  under  the  auspices  of  the 

90  Pope,  this  conquest  assumed  the  character 
of  a  crusade  against  the  unbelievers.  After  a  struggle 
of  thirty  years,  the  rich  island  was  restored  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  Rome.  Roger,  with  the  title  of  Count, 


1060-85  •  The  Norman  Settlement  in  Italy. 


85 


Invasions  of 
Eastern 
Empire 
by  Robert 
Guiscard. 
1081—1085. 


ruled  as  "Prince  of  Sicily,  hereditary  and  perpetual 
legate  of  the  Holy  See;”  and  his  kingdom  was  organ¬ 
ized  on  a  feudal  basis. 

The  success  of  his  brother  furnished  an¬ 
other  spur  to  the  ambition  of  Robert 
Guiscard.  Taking  advantage  of  a  dynastic 
revolution  at  Constantinople,  he  and  his  son 
Bohemund  commenced  a  series  of  invasions  of  the 
Eastern  Empire  which  only  ended  with  his  death. 
These,  though  unsuccessful  in  their  ultimate  result, 
were  influential  causes  of  the  first  crusade,  and  deeply 
affected  the  relations  of  East  and  West  for  years  to 
come. 

Meanwhile  in  Sicily  Roger  had  been  succeeded  by 
his  son,  and,  in  1127,  this  heir  of  the  destinies  of  his  race 
added  the  dukedom  of  Apulia  to  that  of  Sicily,  obtained 
from  Pope  Anacletus  the  title  of  king,  and 
finally  established  the  Norman  kingdom  of 
Naples.  His  character  is  thus  described  by 
a  contemporary  chronicler.  “  He  was  a 
lover  of  justice  and  most  severe  avenger 
of  crime.  He  abhorred  lying ;  did  every¬ 
thing  by  rule,  and  never  promised  what  he  did  not  mean 
to  perform.  He  never  persecuted  his  private  enemies; 
and  in  war  endeavoured  on  all  occasions  to  gain  his 
point  without  shedding  of  blood.  Justice  and  peace 
were  universally  observed  throughout  his  dominions.” 

During  his  reign  the  intercourse  between  England 
and  Sicily  was  close.  The  government  was  organized 
on  principles  very  similar  to  that  of  England  ;  and  many 
an  Englishman  wandered  south  to  find  employment  in 
Church  and  State  under  the  Norman  king  of  Sicily. 

Under  his  wise  rule  and  that  of  his  immediate  suc¬ 
cessors,  the  south  of  Italy  and  Sicily  enjoyed  a  transient 


Roger  II., 
Count  of 
Sicily,  suc¬ 
ceeds  to 
Apulia  and 
becomes 
king. 

1130. 


The  JVormans  in  Europe.  A.  I>. 

gleam  of  prosperity  and  happiness.  Their 
equal  and  tolerant  government,  far  surpass¬ 
ing  anything  at  that  day  in  Europe,  enabled 
the  Saracen,  the  Greek,  and  the  Italian  to  live  together 
in  harmony  elsewhere  unknown.  Trade  and  industry 
flourished,  the  manufacture  of  silk  enriched 
the  inhabitants,  and  the  kingdom  of  Naples 
was  at  peace  until  she  was  crushed  under 
the  iron  heel  of  a  Teutonic  conqueror. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

RICHARD  III.  AND  ROBERT  THE  MAGNIFICENT. 

For  the  sake  of  clearness  we  have  carried  our  sketch 
of  the  Normans  in  Italy  up  to  the  middle  of  the  twelfth 
century.  We  must  now  return  to  the  Dukes  of  Nor¬ 
mandy,  to  trace  in  detail  the  growing  connection  be¬ 
tween  England  and  Normandy,  which  was  to  result  in 
the  greatest  conquest  of  all— the  Norman  conquest  of 
England. 

Richard  II.  died  without  a  dream  of  the  great  destiny 
awaiting  his  race  in  the  south.  Three  years  before 
,  the  settlement  at  Aversa,  he  had  peacefully 

Death  of  .  .  ,  ,  ' 

Richard  II.  passed  away,  leaving  his  son  Richard,  the 

third  of  his  name,  as  his  successor  to  the 
dukedom.  During  his  successful  reign  the  dread  of 
Normandy  had  increased  all  around.  Pursuing  steadily 
the  policy  of  his  father,  he  had  confirmed  the  Capetian 
dynasty  on  the  throne  of  France,  strengthened  his  posi¬ 
tion  by  numerous  alliances,  and,  by  his  quiet  rule  in 
Normandy,  prepared  her  for  her  next  new  enterprise. 

Richard  III.  only  enjoyed  his  dukedom  two  years. 


Conquest  of 
Sicily  by- 
Henry  V. 
“94-5- 


S6 


Prosperity 
of  their 
kingdom. 


1026-1028.  Richard  III.  and  Robert.  87 

and  even  these  were  clouded  by  domestic  quarrels  with 

his  brother  Robert.  A  dispute  arose  between  ,  ,,r 

,  Richard  III. 

the  brothers  as  to  Robert  s  share,  and  as  to  1026-1028. 

the  possession  of  the  important  castle  of 
Falaise.  The  reconciliation  was  speedily  followed  by 
Richard’s  death  by  poison,  administered,  many  said,  by 
Robert. 

Robert,  who  succeeded  to  the  dukedom,  under  these 
suspicious  circumstances,  has  earned  from  the  legendary 
writers  the  title  of  “  the  devil.”  How  or  why  , 

1  Robert  the 

it  is  hard  to  say.  Possibly  the  name  is  due  Magnificent, 
to  the  hatred  which  surrounded  the  early 
days  of  his  young  bastard  son  ;  but  it  was  scarcely  de¬ 
served.  If  we  except  the  alleged  murder  of  his  brother, 
of  which  there  is  considerable  doubt,  no  evil  deeds  are 
brought  against  him. 

Among  contemporaries  he  was  known  as  the  “  Mag¬ 
nificent,”  and  this  best  accords  with  the  reckless,  extra¬ 
vagant  liberality  of  his  character.  He  bears  an  insignifi¬ 
cant  place  in  the  history  of  Normandy,  and  to  us  is 
chiefly  illustrious  as  being  the  father  of  the  Conqueror. 
This  son  was  the  offspring  of  Duke  Robert  and  Harlotta, 
a  daughter  of  a  tanner  of  Falaise,  whom  the  duke  had 
seen  from  the  cliffs  of  Falaise  and  loved  as  she  washed 
clothes  in  the  neighbouring  brook.  The  marriage  ties  of 
the  Norman  dukes  had  all  been  very  loose  from  Rollo 
downwards.  Richard  II. ’s  children  alone  were  born  in 
lawful  wedlock.  The  illegitimacy  of  William  was  there¬ 
fore  but  a  pretext ;  it  was  the  humble  lineage  of 
William’s  mother  which  really  excited  the  contempt  of 
the  haughty  Norman  nobles.  In  his  very  cradle  the 
babe  was  cursed  by  William  Talvas  de  Belesme,  the 
descendant  of  Ivo  de  Belesme,  the  trusty  friend  of  Rich¬ 
ard  Sans  Peur.  “  Shame,  shame,  thrice,  shame,”  cried 


88 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


„  ,  he,  “for  by  thee  and  thine  shall  I  and 

against  mine  be  brought  to  loss  and  dishonour." 

successfully  Talvas  spoke  for  the  nobility,  and  several 

crushed.  revolts  were  the  consequence  of  the  ill- 

feeling.  Robert,  however,  triumphed  over  them  all ,  and, 
secure  at  home,  began  to  exercise  that  influence  on  the 
affairs  of  Europe  which  Normandy,  by  her  position — 
geographical,  social,  and  political — could  not  fail  to 
wield. 

Brittany,  at  this  time  under  Alan,  Robert’s  cousin — 
ever  eager  to  assert  her  independence,  attempted  to 
throw  off  the  homage  definitely  claimed  since  the  days 
Brittany  William  Longsword.  The  attempt,  how- 

reduced  to  ever,  failed  ;  Alan  returned  to  his  allegiance, 
u  miSMOn-  and  henceforth  became  the  trusty  supporter 
of  Robert's  throne. 

Elsewhere  the  position  assumed  by  Robert  was  that 
of  a  protector  of  exiled  princes  and  a  king-maker. 

Baldwin  IV.  of  Flanders,  driven  forth  by 
Flanders  his  rebellious  son,  was  restored  by  the  Nor- 

restored.  man  juke.  Soon  after,  Robert  was  called 

in  to  support  the  claim  of  his  suzerain,  Henry  of  France. 
In  the  year  1031,  Robert  of  France,  the  life-long  friend 
of  the  Norman  duke,  had  died,  leaving  the 
crown  to  his  eldest  son  Henry.  His  widow 
Constance,  a  woman  of  masculine  and 
harsh  character,  disliked  the  retiring  dis¬ 
position  of  her  eldest  son,  and  set  up  the 
claims  of  her  spoilt  youngest  son  Robert.  The  aid  of 
Fulk  of  Anjou  and  Eudes  II.  of  Blois  was  gained,  and 
Henry,  driven  from  his  throne,  was  forced  to  throw  him¬ 
self  on  the  protection  of  his  vassal  of  Normandy.  By 
his  help  the  formidable  league  was  overthrown,  Henry 
was  restored,  and  Robert  his  brother,  contenting  him- 


Henry  of 
France 
assisted  to 
regain  his 
throne. 

1031-1033. 


1028-1035-  Richard  III.  and  Robert. 


89 


self  perforce  with  the  duchy  of  Burgundy,  became  the 
founder  of  the  first  line  of  Burgundian  dukes.  Thus  an¬ 
other  item  was  added  to  the  debt  owed  by  the  Kings  of 
Paris  to  the  Norman  dukes.  In  return  Henry  granted 
to  Robert  the  over-lordship  over  the  Vexin, 
a  piece  of  border-land  lying  between  France  J^nted*'” 

and  Normandy,  and  the  dominions  of  Nor-  Rubwt  the 
J  Magnificent, 

mandy  were  extended  up  to  Versailles  and 

St.  Germain — in  fact,  up  to  the  very  walls  of  Paris. 

So  far  Robert  had  been  successful  in  all  his  schemes. 
In  the  next  he  undertook  he  failed  indeed,  but  it  may 
be  said  to  have  paved  the  way  for  the  future  „  , 
conquests  by  his  son.  The  yEthelings,  takes  up 'he 
Alfred  and  Edward,  still  remained  exiles  at  ^EtheUngs.6 
the  Norman  court,  neglected  alike  by  1028-1035. 
Canute,  who  sat  upon  the  English  throne,  and  by  their 
heartless  mother  Emma,  who  had  married  Canute  and 
forgotten  her  children  by  the  ill-fated  Ethelred. 

At  first  Robert  had  continued  the  policy  of  neutrality 
towards  England  inherited  from  his  father, 
and  had  even  married  Estrith,  sister  of  Marriage 
Canute.  Considerable  obscurity  surrounds  Robert, 
the  subsequent  history ;  but  according  to  c’rc‘  102 
the  most  probable  account  a  quarrel  ensued  owing  to 
the  ill-treatment  of  Estrith  by  her  husband.  Robert 
retaliated  by  reviving  the  pretensions  of  the  .tEthelings, 
and  claimed  the  cession  of  England  to  the  rightful  heir. 
Upon  Canute’s  refusal,  he  attempted  to  invade  England. 
Canute,  however,  was  too  firmly  seated  on  the  throne  to 
be  overthrown  by  this  half-hearted  attempt.  The 
expedition  failed,  and  the  Dane  remained  in  undisputed 
possession  of  his  crown. 

This  ended  Robert’s  political  career.  His  life  closed 
with  a  strange  pilgrimage  to  the  Holy  Land,  prompted 


9° 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


by  a  fit  of  passionate  remorse  ;  for  what 
anddeath'of  crime  we  are  not  told.  The  stories  of  this 
Robert,  pilgrimage  surround  the  name  of  Robert 

with  the  romance  of  a  knight-errant.  With 
ostentatious  liberality  his  mules  were  shod  with  shoes  of 
silver  gilt,  and  carelessly  attached  by  one  nail  alone  that 
they  might  be  lost  and  speak  of  the  riches  of  him  who 
had  passed  that  way,  Arrived  at  the  court  of  Constan¬ 
tinople,  he  treated  the  Emperor  with  a  rudeness  and 
contempt  which  were  best  answered  by  the  studied 
courtesy  of  the  more  refined  monarch  of  the  East.  When 
he  reached  the  gates  of  Jerusalem  we  are  told  of  the 
contest  of  liberality  between  him  and  the  Emir,  Robert 
paying  all  the  tolls  of  those  pilgrims  who  waited  outside 
the  gates,  too  poor  to  pay  their  fee  for  entrance,  which 
the  Emir,  not  to  be  outdone,  returned  on  his 
departure.  On  his  way  home  Robert’s  pil¬ 
grimage  and  life  were  suddenly  cut  short  in 
Bithynia,  where  he  died,  some  said,  by 
His  last  act  well  illustrates  his  extravagant, 
generosity,  the  predominant  feature  of  his 
character,  and  explains  the  reason  of  his  name,  "  the 
Magnificent.” 


Death  of 
Robert  the 
Magnifi¬ 
cent. 


poison. 

senseless 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

EARLIER  YEARS  OF  WILLIAM  IN  NORMANDY. 

We  have  now  to  trace  the  fortunes  of  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  men  the  world  has,  perhaps,  ever  seen :  one 
of  those  who  seem  to  be  born  to  rule  mankind.  William 
the  Conqueror  is  the  best  representative  of 
WiiHarn^he  the  masterful  Norman  character.  His  life 
Bastard,  js  one  ionor  recital  of  extended  successful 

1035.  6 

struggles  against  opposing  forces.  As  a 


1035-  Earlier  Years  of  William  in  Normandy.  91 

babe  he  had  clutched  the  straw  upon  the  floor  and  re¬ 
fused  to  release  his  hold,  and  this  childish 
act  is  typical  of  his  future  life.  Born  to  be  ^j.stecrha' 
resisted,  yet  fated  to  conquer ;  to  excite 
men’s  jealousy  and  to  awaken  their  life-long  animosity, 
only  to  rise  triumphant  above  them  all,  and  to  show  to 
mankind  the  work  that  one  man  can  do -one  man  of 
fixed  principles  and  resolute  will,  who  marks  out  a  cer¬ 
tain  goal  for  himself,  and  will  not  be  deterred,  but 
marches  steadily  towards  it  with  firm  and  ruthless  step. 
He  was  a  man  to  be  feared  and  to  be  respected,  but 
never  to  be  loved  ;  chosen  it  would  seem  by  Providence 
to  fulfil  its  resistless  destiny,  to  upset  our  foregone  con¬ 
clusions,  and,  while  opposing  and  crushing  popular 
heroes  and  national  sympathies,  to  teach  us  that  in  the 
progress  of  nations  there  is  something  required  beyond 
popularity,  something  beyond  mere  purity  and  beauty  of 
character — namely,  the  mind  to  conceive  and  the  force 
of  will  to  carry  out  great  schemes  and  to  reorganize  the 
failing  institutions  and  political  life  of  states.  Born  a 
bastard,  with  no  title  to  his  dukedom  but  the  will  of  his 
father  ;  left  a  minor,  with  few  friends  and  many  enemies, 
with  rival  competitors  at  home  and  a  jealous  over-lord 
only  too  glad  to  see  the  power  of  his  proud  vassal  hum¬ 
bled,  he  gradually  fights  his  way,  gains  his  dukedom, 
and  overcomes  competitors  at  an  age  when  most  of  us 
are  still  under  tutors  and  governors,  extends  his  domin¬ 
ions  far  beyond  the  limits  transmitted  to  him  by  his 
forefathers,  and  then  leaves  his  native  soil  to  seek  other 
conquests,  to  win  another  kingdom,  over  which  again 
he  has  no  claim  but  the  stammering  will  of  a  weak  king 
and  his  own  irresistible  energy,  and,  what  is  still  more 
strange,  securing  the  moral  support  of  the  world  in  his 
aggression,  and  winning  for  himself  the  position  of  an 


92 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


aggrieved  person  recovering  his  just  and  undoubted 
rights.  Truly,  the  Normans  could  have  no  better  repre¬ 
sentative  of  their  extraordinary  power,  and  the  conquest 
of  England  is  well  worthy  of  closing,  as  it  does,  the 
long  series  of  brilliant  acquisitions  gained  by  strength  of 
mind  and  hand  and  will. 

In  sketching  the  history  of  the  man,  three  batdes 
mark  the  three  decisive  epochs  of  ducal  domination — 
Val-es-Dunes,  Varaville,  Hastings  —  and  under  these 
heads  we  will  arrange  his  life  up  to  the  date  of  the 
Conquest. 

Robert’s  best  way  to  have  secured  the  succession  to 
his  son  would  have  been  to  have  married  the  fair  Har- 
,  ,  lotta.  According  to  the  opinions  of  those 

First  period  of  .  ,  .  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 

William's  life  times,  this  would  have  removed  the  stain  on 
Val'-ls-Dunes^  William’s  birth,  and  bastard  he  could  have 

1035-1047.  been  called  no  more.  Too  proud  or  too 
careless  for  this,  Robert  had  satisfied  himself  on  leaving 
for  his  pilgrimage  by  extorting  an  oath  of  allegiance  to 
his  bastard  son  from  the  nobles  of  Normandy,  and  en¬ 
trusting  him  to  the  guardianship  of  his  cousin  Alan  of 
Brittany,  who  forgot  the  quarrel  of  a  few  years  back 
and  fulfilled  the  position  of  regent  with  honour  and 
fidelity. 

b  As  long  as  Robert  lived,  the  nobles  sub- 

against  the  mitted  in  sullen  silence,  but  the  news  of  his 
young  duke.  death  was  the  signal  for  general  anarchy. 
The  curse  of  Talvas  found  echo  throughout  the  limits 
of  the  dukedom,  and  for  twelve  years  the  life  of  the 
young  Bastard  was  in  peril. 

Taking  advantage  of  his  minority  and  the  question¬ 
able  character  of  his  title,  the  nobles  threw  off  all  alle¬ 
giance,  entrenched  themselves  within  their  fortified 
castles  which  sprang  up  on  all  sides,  defied  authority 


1047-  Earlier  Years  of  William  in  Normandy .  93 


1039. 

Murder  of 
Alan. 


and  harassed  the  country  with  their  private  quarrels  and 
assassinations.  Among  the  most  prominent  of  the  rebels 
we  find  Roger  de  Toesny,  who  had  returned  from  his 
Spanish  exploits  to  display  the  cruelties  he  had  learnt 
in  his  warfare  with  the  Moslem,  William  Talvas  de 
Belesme,  the  inveterate  enemy  of  the  Bastard,  and  the 
houses  of  Montgomery  and  of  Beaumont ;  the  three  last 
names  hereafter  to  be  well  known  in  English  history. 

Alan,  attempting  in  vain  to  restrain  these  turbulent 
spirits,  met  his  death  by  poison  before  the  stronghold 
of  the  Montgomeries.  The  other  friends  of 
the  young  duke  fell  victims  by  assassination, 
and  William  himself  with  difficulty  escaped 
the  same  fate. 

Hitherto  the  disturbances  in  Normandy  had  taken 
the  character  of  isolated  rebellions  of  individual  nobles 
struggling  for  their  own  independence,  and  there  had 
been  no  organized  opposition  to  William.  Organized 
Over  these  the  untiring  energy  of  William  conspiracy 
and  his  few  hearty  advisers  triumphed.  Now,  wni'iam, 
warned  by  the  rapidly  developing  powers  of  IC>47’ 
William  (he  was  by  this  time  nineteen  or  twenty)  that 
they  must  strike  at  once  if  they  would  strike  at  all,  the 
nobles  organized  a  wide-spread  conspiracy.  No  claimants 
had  as  yet  come  forward  to  dispute  the  cor¬ 
onet  with  William.  But  now  Guy,  Count  of  £uv  of  , 

J  Burgundy 

Burgundy,  the  son  of  Renaud  and  his  wife  claims  the 
Alice,  sister  of  Richard  III.,  claimed  the 
duchy  as  his  right  by  birth.  His  appeal  was  readily  an¬ 
swered  by  the  lords  of  the  Cotentin  and  the  Bessin,  with 
whom  he  promised  to  share  his  conquest.  This  part  of 
Normandy  had  longest  retained  the  memory  of  its  Scan¬ 
dinavian  origin,  and  had  long  ago  rebelled  against  the 
French  tastes  and  sympathies  of  William  Longsword.  But 


94 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


probably  it  was  rather  the  hope  of  independence  than  any 
national  antagonism  which  now  led  them  to  rebel,  since 
those  districts  east  of  the  Dives  which  Guy  proposed  to 
keep  for  himself  sided  with  the  young  duke.  Around 
the  standard  of  Guy  also  rallied  all  the  factious  nobles 
who  had  not  hitherto  been  humbled,  and  thus  a  formi¬ 
dable  coalition  arose.  William,  awakened  from  his  sleep 
,  at  Valognes  by  the  warning  cry  of  his  court 

Narrow  n 

escape  of  fool,  “Up.  up,  my  lord  duke;  open,  nee, 
delay  is  death  !”  with  difficulty  escaped  an 
attempted  surprise,  and  flying  to  the  strong  castle  of 
Falaise,  his  birth-place,  summoned  the  faithful  to  his  sup¬ 
port.  His  authority  was  acknowledged  by  the  districts 
east  of  the  Dives,  and  by  the  towns  and  people  gen¬ 
erally,  who,  we  are  told,  even  in  tire  Bessin  and  the 
Cotentin,  cursed  the  rebels,  and  in  their  hearts  wished 
well  to  the  duke. 

He  then  appealed  to  his  suzerain  Henry.  Henry  had 
hitherto  tacitly  sided  with  the  rebels,  and 
Henry  for  even  seized  the  castle  of  Tillieres  which  had 

the  last  time 

supports  been  built  by  Richard  the  Good  to  strengthen 

his  dominions  on  the  side  of  Dreux;  but 
now  dreading  lest  by  thus  supporting  the  revolt  he  might 
weaken  his  own  power,  he  for  the  last  time  sided  with 
the  duke. 

The  strife  which  ensued  took  the  character  of  a  war 
between  the  semi-Scandinavian  Bessin  and 
Cotentin  of  the  West,  and  the  romance  ele¬ 
ment  of  the  east,  a  division  which,  often 
noticeable  before  in  the  history  of  Nor¬ 
mandy,  was  here  to  appear  for  the  last  time.  The 
forces  met  at  Val-es-Dunes,  on  a  broad  sloping  plain 
some  miles  south-east  of  Caen,  bounded  to  the  west  by 
the  river  Orne.  Here  a  fierce  hand-to-hand  encounter 


Geographi¬ 
cal  charac¬ 
ter  of  the 
struggle. 


» J  *, 


95 


Val-es- 

Dunes, 

1047. 

The  rebel¬ 
lion 

crushed. 


1047.  Earlier  Years  of  Williaini  in  Normandy 

£  7P1N1TV  1 

of  mounted  knights  ensued.  No  footmen  ape  mentioned, 
and  the  Norman  archers,  subsequently  so  famous,  do 
not  appear.  On  the  left  was  marshalled  the  royal  host 
against  the  men  of  the  Cotentin.  On  the 
right  the  Normans  opposed  the  rebels  from 
the  Bessin.  The  Frenchmen,  as  they 
spurred  their  horses  to  the  attack,  raised 
their  war-cry  of  “  Montjoye  Saint  Denis!” 

— the  Normans  that  of  “  Dex  aie!” — to  which  the 
rebels  answered  by  the  names  of  local  saints. 

The  struggle  was  long  and  severe.  Twice  was  Henry 
unhorsed.  William,  more  fortunate  than  his  royal  ally, 
here  first  began  his  successful  career  in  arms,  and  struck 
down  many  a  rebel  knight.  At  last  the  rebels  gave 
ground  and  were  beaten  back,  then  turned  and  fled. 
Many  were  driven  by  the  hot  pursuit  of  their  foes  into 
the  river  Orne.  Here  they  were  either  drowned,  or  slain 
as  they  attempted  to  cross;  and  the  mills,  we  are  told, 
were  choked  by  the  bodies  that  floated  down  the  stream. 
The  results  of  this  crushing  defeat  were  decisive.  Guy 
soon  after  came  to  terms,  and  retired  to  Burgundy.  The 
other  nobles  submitted,  their  castles  were  everywhere 
destroyed,  and  William,  after  a  struggle  of  twelve  years, 
found  himself  at  last  master  of  Normandy.  His  success 
had  been  entirely  due  to  his  energy  and  masterly  ability, 
and  his  triumph  was  marked  by  singular  leniency. 

But  if  the  conduct  of  William  after  Val-es-Dunes 
shows  that  he  was  no  man  of  blood,  but 
spared  when  he  thought  it  could  safely  be 
done,  the  other  traits  of  his  character — his 
extreme  severity,  his  impatience  of  insult, 
his  revengeful  spirit — are  clearly  pourtrayed 
in  his  treatment  of  the  rebels  of  Alencon 

The  men  of  Alencon,  stirred  by  William  Talvas  de 


William's 
cruel  treat¬ 
ment  of  the 
men  of 
Alencon, 
1049. 


9<5 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Belesme,  William’s  old  enemy,  in  whose  lordship  they 
lay,  admitted  Geoffrey  of  Anjou  into  their  town,  and 
rebelled  against  the  duke.  On  his  approach  they  spread 
out  skins  over  the  walls  and  beat  them,  shouting,  “  Hides 
for  the  tanner!  plenty  of  work  for  the  tanner!”  in  con¬ 
temptuous  allusion  to  his  mother's  lineage.  William, 
angered  by  the  gross  insult,  swore  by  “  the  splendour  of 
God”  that  he  would  deal  with  the  mockers  as  with  a 
tree  whose  branches  are  cut  off  with  a  pollarding  axe  ; 
and  terribly  he  kept  his  word.  The  town  soon  after  fell, 
and  William  ordered  thirty  two  of  the  citizens  to  be 
brought  before  him.  By  his  orders  their  hands  and  feet 
were  chopped  off,  and  the  dismembered  limbs  thrown 
over  the  castle  walls  as  earnests  of  his  vengeance.  The 
garrison,  pitifully  craving  mercy,  at  once  capitulated, 
and  William,  having  strengthened  the  castle,  retired  in 
triumph  to  Rouen. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


FEUDAL  SYSTEM  AND  MONASTICISM. 

Leaving  William  secure  in  the  possession  of  his  ducal 
dominion,  we  must  take  a  glance  at  the  origin  and  cha¬ 
racter  of  the  feudal  system. 

No  question  connected  with  the  history'  of  early  insti¬ 
tutions  has  been  the  subject  of  such  controversy  as  that 
of  the  origin  of  this  system.  In  the  last 
Theories  as  century  it  was  supposed  to  have  been  syste- 

to  origin  of  r  J 

matically  introduced  by  the  Franks  on  their 
first  conquest  of  Gaul  in  the  fifth  century,  as 
a  means  of  governing  their  newly  acquired  possessions. 
Others,  while  rightly  allowing  it  to  be  of  gradual 


feudal 

system. 


500-1000. 


Feudal  System. 


97 


Two  aspects 
of  feudal¬ 
ism— a  sys¬ 
tem  of  land 
tenure,  a 
system  of 
government. 


growth,  have  unduly  pressed  the  distant  analogies  to  be 
found  in  Roman  law,  and  have  traced  its  development, 
more  or  less  exclusively,  from  the  forms  of  tenure  to  be 
found  under  the  later  Empire. 

These  ideas,  however,  have  been  abandoned  of  late, 
and  it  is  now  generally  held  to  be  of  purely  natural,  that 
is  of  Frankish,  growth — a  gradual  develop¬ 
ment  of  Teutonic  customs,  which,  at  most, 
as  they  acquired  form,  borrowed  from  the 
analogies  to  be  found  in  Roman  law. 

In  tracing  the  origin  of  the  institution,  it 
will  be  well  to  consider  it  under  its  twofold  aspect  of  a 
<ystem  of  land  tenure ,  and  a  system  of  government. 

It  had  been  a  custom  of  the  kings  of  the  Merovingian 
House,  who  had  ruled  the  Franks  from  the  fifth  to  the 
eighth  century,  to  grant  estates  to  their 
kinsmen  and  followers,  in  return  for  which  system  of 

land  tenure. 

they  exacted  a  pledge  of  fidelity.  Lands  so 
granted  were  termed  beneficia;  and,  though  perhaps 
originally  held  for  life,  rapidly  tended  to 
become  hereditary. 

In  time  this  custom  was  extended  by  the  spontaneous 
act  of  the  free  land-owners,  who,  for  the  sake  of  protec¬ 
tion  in  those  troubled  times,  surrendered  their  estates  to 
some  great  man,  or  church,  to  be  held  of  them  as  ten¬ 
ants  by  rent  and  service. 

Thus  this  beneficiary  system  gradually  became  uni¬ 
versal,  and  not  improbably  borrowed  somewhat  from 
Roman  law,  where  the  custom  of  holding 
land  of  another  by  a  perpetual  kind  of  Roman'law1 
lease,  was  well  known  under  the  name  of 
emphyteusis,  while  the  grants  of  lands  along  the  frontier 
to  friendly  tribes,  on  the  terms  of  military  service,  formed 
another  precedent. 


Beneficia. 


98 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


In  this  beneficiary  system  we  have  some  of  the  ele¬ 
ments  of  feudalism.  The  real  relation,  that  is,  the  tie 
formed  through  the  medium  of  land  tenure,  existed  be¬ 
tween  landlord  and  tenant,  and  a  rent  was  in  many 
cases  paid. 

But  the  personal  tie  of  vassalage  was  wanting.  The 
tenant,  while  holding  land  of  another,  and  promising  to 
be  faithful  to  the  lord  as  a  return  for  protection,  was  in 
no  sense  his  man ;  he  paid  him  no  homage.  This,  the 
personal  tie,  was  given  by  the  custom  of  commendation, 
whereby  the  inferior  put  himself  under  the  personal  care 
of  his  lord.  With  head  uncovered,  with 
donimenda"  belt  ungirt,  his  sword  removed,  he  placed 
his  hands,  kneeling,  between  those  of  his 
lord,  promised  to  become  his  man  or  vassal,  and  took 
the  oath  of  fealty. 

This  vassalage  had  no  relation  to  land.  The  tie 
between  man  and  man  was  here  a  purely  personal  one. 
The  vassal  still  might  hold  his  land  independently  of  his 
lord.  He  had  simply,  by  the  act  of  commendation,  be¬ 
come  the  lord’s  man — had  sworn  to  be  faithful  to  him, 
and  sometimes  to  pay  him  military  service,  the  lord,  on 
his  part,  engaging  to  defend  his  vassal. 

It  had  long  been  the  custom  of  the  Germanic  kings 
to  collect  around  them  a  number  of  personal  followers, 
under  the  name  of  the  Comitatus  or  Gesiths ;  and  we 
shall  see  this  system  in  England,  under  its  English  form 
of  thaneship,  becoming  universal. 

Some  have  supposed  that  this  happened  abroad,  and 
have  traced  the  system  of  commendation  from  that  of 
the  Comitatus,  of  which  they  consider  it  a  later  develop¬ 
ment;  others  assert  the  independent  origin  of  the  two 
customs.  In  any  case,  the  reason  for  the  rise  of  the  two 
systems  is  to  be  sought  in  the  same  desire  of  mutual 


500-1000. 


Feudal  System. 


99 


protection  and  security  ;  and  the  Teutonic  institution  of 
Comitatus  at  least  became  merged  in  that  of  the 
commendation. 

Here,  again,  the  relation  of  the  client  to  the  patron  in 
Roman  law  furnished  a  model  from  which, 
perhaps,  something  may  have  been  bor- 
rowed. 

Finally,  in  the  union  of  the  beneficiary  tie  with  that  of 
commendation,  the  feudal  obligation  arose. 

Then,  in  every  case  where  a  beneficium  was  granted, 
or  handed  over  by  the  owner  to  be  received 
back  again,  the  tie  would  be  completed  by  beneficiary  tie 
an  act  of  homage,  and  the  tenant  would  now  dationmmen" 
be  bound  to  his  lord  by  tenure  and  by  fealty. 

Thus  society  grouped  itself  round  many  centres  or 
units.  The  king  granted  lands  to  his  great  men,  who 
paid  homage  to  him  ;  they,  in  turn,  granted  out  lands  to 
those  below  them  (subinfeudation) ;  and  all  ranks  tended 
to  become  connected  together  through  the  medium  of 
land  tenure. 

Thus  far  feudalism  was  little  more  than  a  system  of 
land  tenure  and  society,  and  had  not  yet 
affected  the  machinery  of  government.  For  A  system  of 

J  °  government. 

this  we  must  look  to  the  opposite  process. 

Hitherto  the  movement  had  been  a  growth  from  below  ; 
an  aggregation  of  inferiors  round  numerous  superiors 
or  centres.  Now  the  opposite  tendency  comes  in. 

It  had  long  been  the  custom  of  the  kings  to  couple 
their  grants  of  land  with  rights  of  independent  judica¬ 
ture  over  the  dwellers  on  that  land,  and,  „ 

11  .  Rise  of  inde- 

under  the  successors  of  Charles  the  Great,  pendent  juris- 
the  official  magistracy  became  hereditary.  dlct'ons- 
They  acquired  large  estates,  with  the  rights  of  jurisdic¬ 
tion  ;  the  smaller  landowners  gathered  round  them  for 


IOO 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


protection,  and  became  their  vassals.  Thus,  as  the  cen¬ 
tral  power  lost  its  hold,  these  officials  gradually  estab¬ 
lished  their  independence,  until,  from  the  ministerial 
officers  of  the  Empire,  the  dukes  and  counts  became  the 
rulers  over  separate  principalities,  with  semi-royal  rights 
of  jurisdiction,  coinage,  and  legislation,  enjoying  the 
right  of  waging  private  war,  and  bound  to  the  central 
authority  by  the  feudal  tie  alone. 

By  the  union  of  these  two  tendencies  then — the  cen¬ 
tripetal  from  below,  the  centrifugal  from 
above — the  feudal  system  was  completed. 
Each  held  of  another;  all  were  bound  to 
one  another  by  obligation  of  service,  fealty, 
and  defence;  and  all  eventually  held  of  the 
king,  the  head  of  the  feudal  fabric. 

Government  and  justice  were  organized  on  the  same 
basis.  Each  separate  lord  had  his  feudal 
court,  with  jurisdiction  over  his  immediate 
vassals  and  the  tenants  of  his  demesne.  This  jurisdiction 
varied  according  to  the  terms  of  grant  in  each  particular 
case.  Causes  which  the  lower  courts  were  not  competent 
to  judge  were  sent  to  the  court  above,  and  in  theory 
the  ultimate  appeal  belonged  to  the  royal  court. 

The  most  important  form  of  trial  was  that  by  combat, 
in  which  the  accuser  and  accused  appealed  to  God,  and 
decided  the  question  by  the  sword,  but 
women  and  ecclesiastics  were  allowed  to 
entrust  their  cause  to  a  champion.  If  the 
combat  was  to  settle  a  civil  suit,  the  vanquished  party 
forfeited  his  claim,  and  had  to  pay  a  fine;  if  he  fought 
by  proxy,  the  champion  was  condemned  to  lose  his 
hand.  In  criminal  cases,  the  defendant  challenged  his 
accuser  or  his  judges,  and  if  victorious,  the  punishment 
due  to  his  offence  was  visited  on  them. 


Govern¬ 
ment  juris¬ 
diction  and 
society  or¬ 
ganized  on 
the  feudal 
idea. 


Feudal  courts. 


Mode  of 
trial. 


8oo-iooo. 


Feudal  System. 


IOI 


The  lord  exercised  the  right  of  levying  the  feudal  dues 
upon  his  vassals,  claimed  the  right  of  private 
war,  enacted  petty  laws  in  the  feudal  court,  Feudal  nyhts- 
andin  some  cases  had  even  the  privilegeof  coiningmoney. 

Besides  the  military  tenants,  who  were  the  only  proper 
feudal  vassals,  there  were  many  others  who  held  im¬ 
proper  feuds  on  varying  terms,  the  most 
usual  being  those  who  paid  a  fixed  sum  of  free 

money  annually,  and  were  exempt  from  all  socage, 
further  service — free  socagers. 

Beneath  these  free  tenants  came  the  villeins,  a  class, 
perhaps,  originally  formed  of  the  conquered  population, 
but  recruited  in  later  times  by  many  of  the 
less  fortunate  who  fell  into  this  semi-servile  ga'rdantand 
position.  These  villeins  were  of  two  kinds —  m  gross, 

villeins  regardant  and  in  gross.  The  former  held  small 
plots  of  land,  to  which  they  were  bound.  They  could 
not  leave  the  land,  nor  could  they  be  driven  from  it,  but 
they  might  be  transferred  by  their  lord  with  the  land, 
and  had  to  pay  him  servile  services  by  tilling  the  land 
of  his  demesne.  The  villeins  in  gross  were  little  better 
than  personal  slaves,  incapable  of  property,  and  desti¬ 
tute  of  redress  against  their  lord  except  for  the  most 
atrocious  injuries. 

To  the  feudal  system  must  also  be  traced  the  growth 
of  hereditary  offices.  It  had  long  been  the  custom  for 
the  great  men  to  surround  themselves  with 
a  multitude  of  dependents,  who  filled  offices  Hereditary 
which  now  would  be  considered  menial, 
but  then  were  looked  upon  as  honourable.  In  feudal 
times  these  offices  became  hereditary,  and  thus  we  find 
the  titles  of  steward,  seneschal,  marshal,  chamberlain, 
and  butler  held  as  inheritable  offices  by  great  families 
under  the  greater  feudal  lords. 


102 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


The  essential  principle  of  feudalism  was  that  of  mu¬ 
tual  support  and  fidelity.  The  lord  promised  to  protect 
and  do  justice  to  his  vassal,  the  vassal  to  be 
character  of  faithful  and  do  service  to  his  lord.  If  the 

the  feudal  lord  omitted  to  fulfil  his  part  of  the  contract, 

tie.  r 

the  vassal  might  abandon  his  allegiance. 
If  the  vassal  neglected  his  duties,  his  land  would  forfeit 
to  the  lord. 

The  duties  of  the  vassal  were  briefly  these.  He  had 
„  ,  ,  to  do  “  suit  and  service’’  to  his  lord's  court. 

Feudal  inci-  . 

dents.  Suit  Of  this  court  lie  was  one  of  the  judges,  and 
and  service.  jjjmse]f  accused,  would  enjoy  the  right  of 
trial  by  his  peers.  He  had  to  serve  his  lord  for  forty 
days  when  required,  and  go  into  captivity 
for  him  as  hostage  when  taken  prisoner. 
P'urtherhewas  subject  to  the  following  inci¬ 
dents. 

On  succeeding  to  his  estate  he  had  to  pay 
a  fine  under  the  name  of  a  relief. 

He  had  to  contribute  towards  the  dower  of  his  lord's 
eldest  daughter,  towards  the  expenses  in¬ 
curred  in  knighting  his  eldest  son,  and  to  the 
ransom  for  his  lord  if  taken  captive. 

The  lord  had  in  some  cases  the  right  to  wardship  of 
the  estate  of  his  tenants  during  the  minority 
of  the  heir,  and  could  marry'  his  ward  to  his 
own  nominee  or  exact  a  fine  on  refusal. 
Closely  connected  with  feudalism  the  institution  of 
knighthood  or  chivalry  grew  up.  This  is  probably  to  be 
traced  to  the  primitive  Teutonic  custom  of 
investing  the  youth  arrived  at  man’s  estate 
with  his  arms  in  the  full  assembly  of  the 
tribe.  In  feudal  times  the  ceremony  would  be  performed 
in  the  castle  of  the  lord,  and  would  be  conferred  not 


Military 

service. 


Relief. 


Three  aids. 


Wardship 
and  mar¬ 
riage. 


Knighthood 
and  chi¬ 
valry  . 


IOOO. 


Feudal  System. 


103 


only  on  his  own  sons,  but  upon  the  sons  of  his  vassals, 
whereby  another  bond  was  formed  between  the  lord  and 
his  dependents.  Any  knight,  however,  might  in  theory 
confer  the  dignity. 

By  the  Church  the  ceremony  was  invested  with  a 
semi-religious  character,  especially  during 
the  crusading  period.  The  would-be  knight,  of 'knight- 
after  bathing  in  a  bath  as  if  to  wash  away  hood' 
his  sins,  was  robed  in  a  symbolical  garb,  and  left  within 
the  church  to  pass  the  night  in  prayer  and  meditation. 
Next  morning,  after  confession  and  reception  of  the 
Eucharist,  he  went  to  his  initiation.  His  arms  and  spurs 
were  buckled  on  him  by  knights  or  ladies,  and,  kneeling 
before  his  lord,  he  received  the  accolade,  or  three  blows 
across  the  shoulders  with  the  flat  of  the  sword.  Then 
swearing  to  serve  God  faithfully  and  fight  for  His  faith, 
to  maintain  the  right  of  the  weak,  especially  of  women, 
to  be  honest  in  all  his  dealings,  and  to  be  true  and  loyal 
to  his  lord,  he  rose  a  knight. 

The  systematic  establishment  of  this  form  of  society 
and  government  seems  to  have  been  con¬ 
fined  to  the  limits  of  the  Empire  of  Charles 
the  Great — that  is,  to  Germany,  France, 

Arragon  and  Italy.  In  the  last,  owing  to 
her  after  history,  it  was  not  of  lasting  in¬ 
fluence,  except  in  the  Norman  kingdom  of  Sicily ;  and 
though  it  was  subsequently  transferred  to  England  by 
the  Normans,  whence  it  spread  to  Scotland,  it  there 
appeared,  as  we  shall  see,  in  a  modified  and  exceptional 
form.  Within  these  limits  the  influence  of  the  feudal 
idea  was  supreme.  Not  only  did  it  affect 
the  tenure  of  land  and  the  framework  of  influence *of 
justice  and  government ;  it  threw  its  all-em-  [d|afeudal 
bracing  arms  over  the  Church  itself.  The 


Feudalism 
proper  con¬ 
fined  to 
limits  of 
Charles  the 
Great’s 
Empire. 


io4 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


bishops  held  the  lands  of  their  sees  by  feudal  tenure, 
and  paid  homage  for  them,  and  hence,  as  we  shall  see, 
arose  the  quarrel  about  investitures.  The  papacy,  under 
Gregory  VII.,  adopted  the  same  phraseology  and  shape, 
became  a  spiritual  monarchy  after  the  feudal  type,  and 
aspired  to  be  the  feudal  superior  of  Western  Europe,  to 
whose  suzerainty  the  kings  and  the  emperor  himself 
should  be  subject. 

Its  effect  upon  society  must  now  be  noticed.  Rising 
as  it  did  out  of  the  circumstances  and  wants 
of  the  times,  it  had  a  meaning  and  did 
something  towards  the  development  of  the 
individual  and  of  society.  The  attempt  at 
centralization  introduced  by  Charles  the 
Great  had  been  premature,  and,  in  the  disorganized 
state  of  society  which  followed,  fell  to  ruin.  Here  feud¬ 
alism  came  in,  and  by  its  decentralizing  in¬ 
fluence  helped  to  develop  local  institutions 
and  self-government. 

At  the  same  time,  the  tie  which  in  theory  existed 
between  all  members  of  the  system,  weak 

Prevented  rise 

of  petty  king-  though  it  was,  yet  kept  France  in  some  sort 
together,  and  prevented  the  rise  of  inde¬ 
pendent  kingdoms,  as  was  the  case  in  the  Eastern 
empires. 

In  the  right  of  the  vassal  to  defy  the  lord  lay  the 
germ  of  the  future  right  of  resistance  to 
arbitrary  rule ;  and  since  in  theory  no  suze¬ 
rain  could  exact  other  than  the  customary 
dues,  or  pass  laws  without  his  vassal’s  con¬ 
sent,  who  in  turn  was  held  to  represent  his 
sub-vassals,  the  idea  of  popular  assent  to 
taxation  and  legislation  was  maintained. 

To  it  again  we  owe  the  growth  of  territorial  as  con- 


Effect  of 
feudalism 
on  society 
and  on  the 
individual 
for  good. 


Developed 

localization. 


Germ  of  doc¬ 
trines  of  resist¬ 
ance,  represen¬ 
tation,  and 
popular  assent 
to  legislation 
and  taxation. 


iooo.  Feudal  System.  105 

trasted  with  personal  power.  Nobility,  which  had  hith¬ 
erto  been  purely  a  personal  honour,  became  territorial. 
The  dukes,  counts,  and  barons  assumed 
titles  from  their  castles  or  domains.  They  ^r°itoria°f 
became  the  lords  of  the  land  over  which  sovereignty 

and  nobility. 

they  ruled,  and  by  virtue  of  their  position 
as  owners  of  the  land  enjoyed  rights  of  jurisdiction  over 
their  vassals.  The  kings  followed  suit ;  once  the 
personal  kings  over  their  tribes,  they  now  became  the 
over-lords  of  all  the  land  occupied  by  their  tribes,  and 
the  kings  of  the  territory  by  that  right.  Hence  the  final 
change  to  territorial  from  personal  sove¬ 
reignty.  Moreover,  the  hereditary  principle  'individual 
thereby  perfected  was  necessary  to  real 
advance,  since  without  it  progress  was  dependent  upon 
single  lives,  and  continuity  difficult  to  maintain.  Mean¬ 
while,  within  certain  limits,  something  was  done  tow-ards 
the  development  of  individual  character.  This  will  be 
best  appreciated  if  we  recall  the  character 
of  feudal  life.  Imagine  a  castle  perched  on 
some  rock  or  cliff  detached  from  the  moun¬ 
tains  near,  with  a  river  flowing  at  its  feet.  The  rock  is 
difficult  of  access,  and  nature  has  been  assisted  by  the 
work  of  man.  Strong  walls  surround  the  castle.  The 
gates  are  guarded  by  heavy  doors,  and  every  approach 
commanded  by  narrow  mullioned  windows,  from  which 
arrows  and  other  missiles  may  be  shot.  Enter  the  gates 
and  you  find  yourself  in  a  small  courtyard  laid  down 
with  turf.  Within,  the  castle  is  dark  and  weird,  lit 
by  straggling  sunbeams  which  pierce  the  narrow 
windows.  The  dungeon  and  the  cellars  are  beneath ; 
the  hall  and  sleeping-rooms  above.  The  hall  alone 
looks  cheerful.  Here  at  least  there  is  some  space,  some 
light.  A  huge  fire  crackles  on  the  hearth,  and  here 


io6 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


The  home¬ 
steads  of  the 
villeins.  The 
chase. 


the  lord  and  his  family  pass  the  days,  here  the  jongleur 
or  bard  sings  his  lays,  and  here  the  feudal  feasts  are 
held  The  lord  may  go  forth  to  the  war  or  the  chase, 
but  his  family,  for  the  most  part,  stay  at  home;  and  in 
the  long  winter  evenings,  or  in  times  of  danger  when 
the  castle  is  tightly  closed,  he  and  his  family  are 
necessarily  thrown  together. 

The  castle  is  also  tenanted  by  his  retainers  of  vary¬ 
ing  rank.  His  vassals’  sons  come  here  to  learn  their 
knightly  duties  and  the  use  of  their  weapons  with  the 
children  of  their  lord.  The  seneschal,  the  marshal,  the 
chamberlain,  the  butler,  men  of  honourable 
birth,  complete  the  circle  within  the  walls. 
At  the  foot  of  the  castle  lie  the  humble 
homesteads  of  the  villeins,  and  hard  by 
perhaps  the  feudal  chase,  where  the  lord  preserves  the 
deer  with  loving  care  and  leads  forth  his  retainers  to  the 
hunt.  We  can  now  understand  the  effect  of  such  a  life 
upon  the  character  of  its  inmates. 

By  it  the  ties  of  domestic  life  were  intensified.  The 

lord,  living  as  he  did  within  the  castle,  surrounded  by 

j  f  his  wife,  his  children,  and  his  retainers,  was 

domestic  drawn  close  to  them.  He  learnt  to  look 

upon  his  children,  especially  his  eldest  son, 

as  the  inheritors  of  his  name  and  power,  and  therefore 

to  take  a  pride  in  them  ;  while  the  children,  accustomed 

to  their  father’s  presence,  learnt  to  love  and 

obey.  The  position  of  the  wife,  as  mistress 

of  the  castle  in  her  lord’s  absence,  was  raised, 

she  acquired  dignity  and  commanded  respect,  while  her 

influence  over  her  children  was  beneficially 

chivalry.  exercised.  Thus  in  every  way  domestic  vir- 

honour,  tues  were  advanced.  To  this  end  chivalry 

justice.  J 

also  tended.  With  much  exaggeration  and 


Position  of 
woman. 


IOOO. 


Feudal  System. 


107 


folly,  at  least  it  fostered  the  principles  of  honour  and  of 
justice,  formed  a  school  of  moral  discipline,  and  indi- 
directly  improved  the  position  of  women,  whose  cause 
every  knight  swore  at  his  initiation  to  sup¬ 
port.  Hence  poetry  and  romance  took  form.  Poetry  and 
r  r  J  romance. 

These,  while  they  threw  a  false  splendour 
around  the  feudal  character,  and  obscured  the  glaring 
inconsistencies,  the  misery  which  surrounded  the  feudal 
castle,  at  least  paved  the  way  for  literary  and 

■  ■  V  Growth  of 

artistic  refinement.  Lastly,  to  the  relations  principle  of 

which  existed  between  the  lord  and  his  re-  i°>  aity . 

tainers  may  be  traced  the  origin  of  the  principle  of  loyalty. 

Such  were  some  of  the  benefits  which  society  owes  to 
feudalism.  But  their  influence  was  often  weak  and  in¬ 
termittent,  and  they  were  sadly  marred  by 
glaring  defects.  The  tie  which  bound  the 
vassal  to  his  lord  was  ever  weak,  and  the 
religious  bond  once  gone,  isolation  set  in. 

Every  feudal  noble  who  could  build  a  castle  shut  him¬ 
self  within  its  walls,  and  defied  his  neighbours  and  his 
over-lord.  Living  an  idle,  useless  life,  he  found  excite¬ 
ment  only  in  the  chase  or  in  wild,  reckless  adventure. 
Hence  society  was  sacrificed  to  the  individual.  The 
disruptive  tendencies  became  predominant.  Feudal  in¬ 
dependence  arose  and  developed  into  anar¬ 
chy,  and  a  state  of  chronic  warfare  ensued 
which  we  have  so  often  seen  illustrated  in  the  history 
of  Normandy. 

Meanwhile  the  gulf  between  classes  became  wider. 
It  was  the  object  of  every  feudal  lord  to  gain  independ¬ 
ence  from  his  suzerain,  and  then  to  crush  out  all  be¬ 
neath  him.  Before  them  the  lesser  nobles  Misery  of 
fell,  and  tyranny  increased.  Amidst  this  lo.wer 
selfish  struggle  of  the  nobles,  the  interest 


Evil  results 
of  feu¬ 
dalism. 
Isolation. 


Anarchy. 


108  The  Normans  in  Europe.  a.  d. 

of  the  lower  classes  was  neglected.  They  never  had  found 
any  real  place  within  the  narrow  circle  of  feudalism. 
Its  humanizing  influence  stopped  at  the  knight,  and 
the  villein  was  scarce  regarded  as  a  fellow-Christian. 
In  early  times  perhaps  his  condition,  though  servile  was 
bearable,  but  as  the  isolation  between  classes  and  aris¬ 
tocratic  pride  advanced,  it  rapidly  grew  worse.  The 
gulf  between  the  military  and  non-military  classes,  a 
term  synonymous  with  noble  and  ignoble,  grew  wider 
every  day,  and  justice  became  the  right  of  the  strongest. 
The  continual  anarchy  which  prevailed  added  to  their 
misery.  While  the  noble  shut  himself  up  in  his  castle, 
his  villeins  fell  a  victim  to  his  enemies,  and  saw  their 
lands  and  homes  harried  by  a  cruel,  ruthless  soldiery. 
Now  and  then  the  villeins  rose,  as  in  the  famous  in¬ 
surrection  of  the  peasants  (997),  only  to  find  that  the 
nobles,  generally  so  disunited,  were  at  one  in  their  de¬ 
termination  to  crush  out  their  liberties  and  to  reduce 
them  to  abject  slavery.  Against  this  senseless  strife 
and  class  isolation  the  Church  protested  feebly.  Here 
and  there  a  town  arose  and  extorted  privileges  from  its 
lord ;  but  for  the  lower  classes,  and  for  any  further  ad¬ 
vance,  the  only  hope  lay  in  the  establishment  of  royal 
power,  and  the  subjection  of  those  petty  tyrannies  to 
the  despotism  of  one. 

How  far  feudalism  was  at  this  date  established  in  Nor¬ 
mandy  it  is  impossible,  in  the  absence  of  all  contempo¬ 
rary  evidence,  to  say.  When  Rollo  invaded 
Condition  of  Normandy  the  feudalizing  process  had  al- 

Normandy.  J  or 

ready  begun,  and  in  the  relations  which 
existed  between  the  Norman  dukes  and  the  Karolings 
or  Capetian  kings,  respectively,  we  see  the  evident 
traces  of  the  feudal  idea.  But  the  dependence  of  Nor¬ 
mandy  on  Paris  was  never  great,  and  Norman  pride 


1000-1050.  Feudal  System. 

was  continually  displayed  in  assertions  that 
her  dukes  held  Normandy  of  “none  higher 
sovereign  in  chief  but  of  God.” 

The  introduction  of  feudal  government  within  the 
duchy  has  been  ascribed  to  Richard  the  Fearless;  per¬ 
haps  it  was  not  perfected  until  after  the  con¬ 
quest  of  England.  All  that  we  know  of  the  Norman  go- 
government  of  Normandy,  anterior  to  that 
date,  has  thus  been  briefly  summed  up:  “The  duke 
ruled  as  a  personal  sovereign  with  the  advice  of  a 
council  of  great  men.  Under  him  were  a  number  of 
barons,  who  owed  their  position  to  the  possession  of 
land  for  which  they  were  under  feudal  obligations  to 
him,  and  which  they  took  every  opportunity  of  discard¬ 
ing.”  Their  nobility  was  derived  partly  from  Norse 
descent,  partly  from  connection  with  the  ducal  family,  to 
which  most  of  them  were  related,  and  they  were  thus 
kept  faithful,  partly  by  a  sense  of  interest,  partly  by  the 
strong  hand  of  their  master.  The  population  of  cultiva¬ 
tors  lived  under  the  aristocracy  —  Gallic  in  extraction, 
Frank  in  law  and  custom,  and  speaking  the  Romance 
language  which  had  been  created  by  their  early  history. 
These  were  in  strict  dependence  on  their  lords,  though 
with  some  faint  remembrance  of  the  comparative  free¬ 
dom  which  they  had  enjoyed  under  the  Frank  empire, 
and  perhaps  enjoyed  greater  privileges  than  their  equals 
elsewhere  in  France,  while  within  the  towns  some  com¬ 
mercial  prosperity  and  a  strong  commercial  feeling 
subsisted  which  broke  forth  now  and  then  as  in  the  city 
of  Le  Mans,  1073  (cf.  p.  184). 

Nothing  but  the  personal  character  of  the  duke  pre¬ 
vented  the  territory  thus  lightly  held  from  dismember¬ 
ment.  The  strong  hand  had  gathered  all  the  great  fiefs 
into  the  hands  of  kinsmen  whose  fidelity  was  secured  by 
1 


109 

Practical  in¬ 
dependence 
of  Nor¬ 
mandy. 


I  IO 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


the  right  of  the  duke  to  garrison  their  castles,  and  whose 
tyrannies  were  limited  by  the  right  of  the  duke  to  enforce 
his  own  peace.  Their  attempts  at  independence  led 
to  continual  quarrels,  and  were  checked  by  ruthless 
bloodshed. 

In  the  history  of  Normandy  during  the  early  life  of 
William,  we  see  the  two  conflicting  principles  well  illus¬ 
trated  which  at  that  time  divided  Europe, 
condition  of  and  in  later  days  were  once  to  be  united 
the  duchy.  jn  crusades.  On  the  one  hand  there 
was  the  love  of  excitement  and  adventure,  often  degene¬ 
rating  into  ferocity,  fostered  by  feudalism 
Spirit  of  ad-  itself,  which  led  to  expeditions  to  foreign 

religious  en-  lands  in  search  of  plunder  and  fresh  con- 

thusiasm.  r  .  . 

quest,  or  found  a  worse  outlet  in  promoting 
anarchy  at  home.  On  the  other,  there  was  the  strong 
religious  enthusiasm,  which,  now  that  the  dread  of  the 
millennium  had  passed,  took  shape  in  renewed  activity. 
Hence  the  increasing  passion  for  pilgrimages  to  the 
Holy  Land  ;  hence  the  proclamation  of  the 
“  Truce  of  God,’’ — an  attempt  to  check  the 
anarchy  and  rapine  of  private  war  by  the 
ecclesiastical  censure.  By  this,  at  first,  all 
war  whatsoever  was  forbidden  ;  but  subse- 


Truce  of 
God. 


terrors  of 
private 

quently,  as  published  in  Normandy,  the  prohibition  was 
limited  to  half  the  week.  From  the  evening  of  Wednes¬ 
day  to  the  morning  of  Monday,  no  violence  of  any  kind 
was  allowed  ;  the  days  of  Christ’s  Supper,  Passion,  and 
Resurrection,  were  at  least  to  be  kept  from  bloodshed. 

Not  the  least  important  outcome  of  the  religious 
enthusiasm  of  the  day  is  to  be  found  in  the  great  revival 
Revival  of  °f  the  Benedictine  rule,  and  the  accom¬ 
panying  rapid  growth  of  monasteries  and 
perfection  of  architecture  in  Normandy. 


monastic 

spirit. 


940-1034. 


Norman  Monasticism. 


1 1 1 


“  It  seemed,”  says  an  old  chronicler,  ‘‘as  if  the  world 
were  awakening,  and,  casting  off  its  ancient 
rags,  were  clothing  itself  anew  in  a  white  Increase  of 
robe  of  churches.”  When  first  the  Northern 
pirates  invaded  Gaul,  churches  and  monasteries  had 
been  alike  destroyed  ;  under  Rollo’s  descendants  these 
ravages  were  repaired,  and  the  dukes  of  Normandy 
became  the  most  beneficent  patrons  of  ecclesiastical 
foundations.  The  famous  house  of  Jumieges,  which 
Hasting  the  pirate  had  destroyed,  had  been 
restored  by  William  Longsword ;  Fecamp 
and  Mont  St.  Michel  owed  their  foundation 
to  Richard  the  Fearless  ;  and,  under  Rich¬ 
ard  the  Good,  who  himself  was  a  great 
restorer,  the  movement  spread  to  the  nobles. 

It  soon  became  the  custom  of  every  great  lord  to  have  a 
monastery  on  his  domain.  Thus  Normandy  grew  to  be 
the  richest  country  in  the  world  for  ecclesiastical  foun¬ 
dations,  and  the  home  of  the  rising  Gothic  architecture, 
which,  borrowed  from  the  southern  plains  of  Lombardy, 
here  reached  its  most  vigorous  growth.  William  himself, 
during  his  later  years  in  Normandy,  founded  two  abbeys 
at  Caen,  and  showed  himself  a  munificent  patron  of 
ecclesiastical  foundations.  Yet  the  most 
important  foundation  at  that  time,  that  of  rfBcc.  "  ' 

Bee,  was  not  due  to  the  patronage  of  the  I034, 

great,  but  to  the  individual  energy  and  devotion  of  a 
simple  knight. 

Herluin  had  in  early  life  been  a  vassal  of  Count 
Gilbert  of  Brionne,  and  a  prominent  actor  in  the  clannish 
quarrels  of  the  time.  Wearied  of  the  secular  life,  he 
at  last  refused  to  execute  some  service  for  his  lord  which 
he  thought  unjust.  In  revenge,  the  Count  ravaged  his 
lands  and  those  of  his  tenants.  Herluin,  summoned  to 


Restoration 
of  house  of 
Jumieges. 
940. 

Fecamp  and 
Mont  St. 
Michel. 
943-956. 


I  12 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


his  lord’s  court,  only  pleaded  for  his  poor  tenants,  and 
demanded  nothing  for  himself.  When  asked  what  he 
really  wished,  “By  loving  this  world,"  said  he,  “  and  by 
obeying  man,  I  have  hitherto  much  neglected  God  and 
myself.  I  have  been  altogether  intent  on  training  my 
body,  and  I  have  gained  no  education  for  my  soul.  If 
I  have  ever  deserved  well  of  thee,  let  me  pass  what 
remains  of  life  in  a  monastery.  Let  me  keep  thy  love, 
and  with  me  give  to  God  what  I  had  of  thee.”  The 
Count,  touched  by  his  words,  granted  him  his  wish. 

Herluin,  receiving  ordination,  retired  to 
the  wild  neighbourhood  of  Brionne,  col¬ 
lected  a  devoted  band  of  men,  who  like  him¬ 
self,  were  flying  from  the  world,  and  finally  built  his 
monastery  upon  the  banks  of  a  beck  in  the  valley  of 
Brionne,  near  the  forest  of  that  name.  The  cloister,  at 
first  of  wood,  was  destroyed  by  a  storm.  This,  attributed 
to  the  malicious  enmity  of  Satan,  did  not  cast  down  the 
energy  of  the  monks  of  Bee.  Again  they  set  to  work, 
and  built  it  this  time  of  stone. 

Such  were  the  small  beginnings  of  Bee,  founded  on 
the  Benedictine  form.  Herluin  himself  had  not  learnt 
to  read  till  at  the  age  of  forty,  and  his  monks  were 
illiterate  men.  Thus  Bee  might  have  remained,  an 
obscure  and  humble  monastery,  but  for  the  accidental 
arrival  of  a  stranger  who  changed  its 
Lanfranc  fortunes  and  its  history.  Lanfranc,  a  native 

comes  to  J 

Avranches.  of  Pavia,  had  gained  great  renown  as  a 
student  of  civil  law  in  that  university,  then 
famous  for  her  imperial  leanings  and  her  schools  of 
Roman  law.  Attracted,  perhaps,  by  the  fame  of  the 
Norman  name,  he  wandered  across  the  Alps  and  founded 
a  school  at  Avranches  in  the  Cotentin. 

This  journey  of  Lanfranc  may  serve  to  illustrate  the 


io34_i°42- 


Bee. 


1  x3 


all-embracing  character  of  Norman  civilization,  which 
for  years  attracted  the  best  minds  of  Europe.  Hitherto 
Lanfranc’s  learning  had  been  wholly  secular,  but  now 
he  fell  under  the  influence  of  the  religious  movement  in 

Normandy.  Seized  one  day  by  lawless  men  T1 

J  He  comes  to 

on  his  way  to  Rouen,  he  was  robbed,  and  Bee. 
left  bound  to  a  tree  in  the  forest  near  the 
monastery  of  Bee.  Night  came  on,  and  he  tried  to 
pray,  but  no  psalm  or  office  rose  to  his  lips.  “  Lord,” 
he  cried,  “  I  have  spent  all  this  time  and  worn  out  body 
and  mind  in  learning,  and  now,  when  I  ought  to  praise 
Thee,  I  can  remember  nothing.  Deliver  me  from  my 
need,  and  with  Thy  help  I  will  so  correct  and  frame  my 
life  that  henceforth  I  may  serve  Thee.”  Released  next 
morning  by  some  passer-by,  he  asked  the  way  to  the 
humblest  monastery  -near,  and  was  directed  to  Bee. 
There,  prostrating  himself  before  Herluin,  he  begged  to 
be  received  as  a  monk,  and  accepted  the  rigorous 
discipline  of  his  rule. 

The  monastery  of  Herluin,  founded  after  the  most 
severe  model  of  St.  Benedict,  had  no  place  for  learning. 
Worship  and  prayer,  work  and  meditation,  were  alone 
allowed ;  but  Herluin  soon  found  that  this  would  not 
suit  the  mind  of  Lanfranc,  and  by  his  leave  Lanfranc 
began  to  teach.  People  soon  flocked  to  hear  his 
lectures ;  he  rapidly  rose  to  the  position  of 

j  j  ’  i  i  ,i  .  Becomes  prior. 

prior,  and  under  him  Bee  became  the  most 

famous  school  in  Christendom,  and  one  of  the  intellect¬ 
ual  centres  of  Europe.  “Under  Lanfranc,”  says  a 
chronicler,  “the  Normans  first  fathomed  the  art  of 
letters,  for  under  the  six  dukes  of  Normandy  scarce 
anyone  among  the  Normans  applied  himself  to  liberal 
studies,  nor  was  there  any  teaching  found  till  God,  the 
provider  of  all  things,  brought  Lanfranc  to  Normandy.” 


ii4 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Lanfranc  had  come  to  Bee  a  scholar  of  civil  law,  but 
he  then  abandoned  all  secular  studies,  and  devoted 
himself  to  theology ;  as  prior  of  Bee,  he  became  a 
prominent  theologian,  and  stood  forth  the  champion  of 
the  Church  in  her  controversy  with  Berengarius  on  the 
doctrine  of  the  Eucharist. 

From  this  day  forth  Bee  became  the  foremost  of 
Norman  monasteries,  and  counted  among  her  children 
three  archbishops  of  Canterbury. 

The  monasteries  of  that  date  formed  the  most  import- 

ant  social  machinery  of  the  times.  The 

Importance  of  .  . 

monasteries  at  monks  were  the  best  agriculturists  of  the 

day,  and  the  pioneers  of  civilization.  Set¬ 
tling  in  some  unreclaimed  spot,  they  made  a  clearing  of 
the  forest,  tilled  the  lands,  whilst  their  monastery  formed 
a  nucleus  round  which  the  farmers  might  settle.  It  thus 
became  the  school  for  the  children,  the  hospital  for  the 
sick,  the  almshouse  for  the  poor,  the  inn  for  the  traveller. 
Nor  was  this  all.  Here  alone  were  any  remains  of  the 
ancient  classics  or  Latin  fathers  preserved  ;  here  alone 
the  pursuits  of  learning  and  of  the  finer  arts  were  fol¬ 
lowed.  Here  church  music,  the  writing  and  illumination 
of  missals,  bell-founding,  organ-building  were  pursued. 
Here,  lastly,  lived  the  chroniclers  to  whom  we  are 
indebted  for  nearly  all  that  we  know  of  those  days.  It 
was  chiefly  through  their  agency  that  such  literary  inter¬ 
course  as  then  existed  was  maintained.  In  the  absence 
of  printing,  and  owing  to  the  scarcity  of  manuscripts,  the 
only  way  of  acquiring  knowledge  was  by  sitting  at  the 
feet  of  some  great  scholar.  Hence  aspirants  after  learn¬ 
ing  wandered  over  Europe,  from  monastery  to 
monastery,  or  school  to  school,  and  Europe  was  drawn 
together.  It  was  thence  that  all  the  great  movement 
for  regenerating  society  and  the  Church  came. 


1017-1035-  Review  of  English  History. 


“5 


CHAPTER  X. 

REVIEW  OF  ENGLISH  HISTORY. 

While  William  had  been  successfully  struggling  with 

his  enemies  in  Normandy,  and  developing 

those  powers  of  body  and  mind  which  were  Condition  of 

hereafter  to  nerve  him  to  greater  deeds, 

events  had  occurred  in  England  of  the  nearest  interest 

to  himself. 

We  left  England  under  the  strong  hand  of  Canute 
the  Dane,  and  noticed  the  failure  of  the  of 

attempted  restoration  of  the  AJthelings  by  Canute. 
Robert  the  Magnificent.  The  aim  of  Canute  101 7  toss- 
had  been  to  found  a  great  Anglo-Scandinavian  kingdom 
of  Denmark,  Sweden,  Norway,  and  England.  King 
nominally  of  four  kingdoms  and  actually  of  three — Eng¬ 
land,  Norway  (won  from  St.  Olaf),  Denmark,  and  half 
Sweden — he  assumed  an  imperial  position, 
and  looked  upon  himself  as  Emperor  of  the  R^s.(‘E|Perial 
North.  The  Eider  was  the  boundary  of  his 
empire;  his  daughter  Gunhild  was  betrothed  to  the 
Emperor  Henry  III.;  and  the  Danish  chroniclers  loved 
to  speak  of  the  three  great  empires  which  divided  the 
world — the  German,  the  Scandinavian,  and  the  Greek. 
Of  this  empire,  Northern  England  was  to  be  , 

r  0  His  popular 

the  centre.  Here  Canute  wished  to  make  rule  in 
his  home,  while  he  ruled  his  dependencies  Englaild- 
through  dependent  kings. 

As  soon  as  he  was  firmly  established  on  the  English 
throne,  and  when  those  traitors  who  had  contributed  to 
his  success,  but  whom  he  rightly  never  trusted,  had  been 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


1 16 


overthrown,  his  policy,  at  first  ruthlessly  severe,  entirely 
changed.  He  now  became,  in  spite  of  a  few  contradic¬ 
tions  of  character,  a  just  and  liberal  monarch  ;  and  his 
subjects,  forgetting  his  title  by  conquest,  looked  upon 
him  as  their  freely-chosen  king.  In  this  he  is  a  fair 
type  of  his  people,  who  now,  as  at  other  times,  rapidly 
amalgamated  with  their  conquered  subjects,  and  adopted 
their  more  advanced  civilization. 

Trusting  to  the  fidelity  of  the  English,  he  dismissed 
all  his  soldiers,  except  a  few  body-guards,  married  the 
Norman  Emma,  the  widow  of  their  late  king  Ethelred, 
and  looked  to  the  prosperity  of  his  country  and  the  love 
of  his  people  as  the  best  defence  against  the  surprise 
of  treachery.  In  his  legislation,  while  he  allowed  a 
separate  political  existence  to  the  North  and  South — in 
the  North  the  Danish  law  obtaining,  in  the  South  the 
English -no  difference  was  made  between  Dane  and 
Englishman.  The  Church  had  been  the  centre  of 
national  resistance  to  the  Dane,  yet  Canute  allied  him¬ 
self  closely  with  it ;  sided  with  the  monastic  party,  the 
party  of  real  advance  at  that  time ;  respected  the  Eng¬ 
lish  saints ;  enforced  the  payment  of  Peter’s  Pence  to 
Rome ;  and  was  himself  a  liberal  benefactor  to  ecclesias¬ 
tical  institutions. 

But  his  empire,  as  such  empires  in  early  days  must 
t  be.  was  a  purely  personal  one,  and  on  his 

mentofthe  death  it  fell  again  into  its  natural  divisions. 

nute!re  io35.Ca'  Norway,  which  Canute  had  left  to  his  son 
Swegen,  soon  returned  to  Magnus,  the 
representative  of  its  old  kings,  and  Denmark,  left  to 
Harthacnut,  passed  to  another  distant  branch. 

Meanwhile  in  England  the  love  which  Ca- 
Haroid  and  nute  had  inspired  by  his  wise  and  conciliatory 
Harthacnut.  rule  was  dissipated  by  the  bad  government  of 


I035_I042-  Review  of  English  History. 


Its  impor¬ 
tance  as 
bearing  on 
the  Norman 
Conquest. 


his  sons,  Harold  and  Harthacnut,  who  ruled 

in  turn.  After  seven  years  of  misgovern-  Edward°th°f 

ment,  or  rather  anarchv,  England,  freed  Confessor, 

’  "  °  IO42. 

from  the  hated  rule  of  Harthacnut  by  his 
death,  returned  to  its  old  line  of  kings,  and  “all  folk 
chose  Edward  to  king,”  as  was  his  right  by  birth.  Not 
that  he  was,  according  to  our  ideas,  the  direct  heir,  since 
Edward,  the  son  of  Edmund  Ironside,  still  lived,  an 
exile  in  Hungary.  But  the  Saxons,  by  choosing  Edward 
the  Confessor,  re-asserted  for  the  last  time  their  right  to 
elect  that  one  of  the  hereditary  line  who  was  most  avail¬ 
able. 

With  the  reign  of  Edward  the  Confessor 
the  Norman  Conquest  really  began.  We 
have  seen  the  connection  between  England 
and  Normandy  begun  by  the  marriage  of 
Ethelred  the  Unready  to  Emma  the  daughter  of  Richard 
the  Fearless,  and  cemented  by  the  refuge  offered  to  the 
English  exiles  in  the  court  of  the  Norman  duke.  Ed¬ 
ward  himself  had  long  found  a  home  there  in  Canute’s 
time ;  the  attempt  to  restore  him  and  his  brother  has 
been  already  mentioned,  and  after  Canute’s  death  another 
attempt,  probably  abetted  by  Duke  William,  had  ended 
in  the  death  of  Alfred,  and  the  narrow  escape  of  Edward 
himself.  Thus  brought  up  under  Norman  influence, 
Edward  had  contracted  the  ideas  and  sym¬ 
pathies  of  his  adopted  home.  On  his  election 
to  the  English  throne  the  French  tongue 
became  the  language  of  the  court,  Norman 
favourites  followed  in  his  train,  to  be  foisted 
into  important  offices  of  State  and  Church,  and  thus 
inaugurate  that  Normanizing  policy  which  was  to  draw 
on  the  Norman  Conquest.  Had  it  not  been  for  this, 
William  would  never  have  had  any  claim  on  England, 


Edward's 
French  lean¬ 
ings.  He  in¬ 
troduces 
Normans 
into  Eng¬ 
land. 


ii8 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


the  question  of  Edward’s  will  and  Harold’s  promise 
would  never  have  vexed  the  historian,  and,  as  far  as  we 
can  see,  the  interests  of  England  and  Nor¬ 
mandy  would  have  been  indefinitely  sepa¬ 
rated.  To  understand  therefore,  the  Norman 
Conquest  aright,  we  must  consider  the  reign 
of  Edward  as  its  prelude,  the  gradual  gathering  of  the 
forces  which  were  subsequently  to  dispute  the  kingdom 
on  the  field  of  Hastings,  and  the  quarrels  between  the 
Normanizing  and  English  parties  as  the  skirmishes 
which  preceded  the  final  action.  Viewed  in  this  way 
_  alone  is  the  reign  of  Edward  the  Confessor 

Two  parties.  .  . 

x.  The  Nor-  seen  in  its  true  perspective;  the  apparently 
2!ax'henEng-  meaningless  quarrels  which  characterize  it 
llsh-  assume  their  true  importance,  and  the  in¬ 

terest,  otherwise  disjointed,  centres  round  the  two  op¬ 
posing  parties. 

Of  these  parties  the  two  representatives  are  Edward  the 
Confessor  and  Godwine,  succeeded  by  his  son  Harold,  and 
their  quarrels  will  give  us  the  natural  divisions  of  the  reign. 

Of  all  Canute’s  schemes  one,  and  that  his  most  mis¬ 


The  reign 
forms  the 
prelude  to 
the  Norman 
Conquest. 


taken  one,  alone  seems  to  have  left  any  definite  trace. 

Under  him  England  had  been  divided  into 
four1' L  four  great  earldoms — Northumbria,  Mercia, 

earldoms.  £asj-  Anglia,  and  Wessex.  This  was  clearly 
to  perpetuate  her  want  of  unity  and  nationality,  a  fruitful 
cause  of  England’s  weakness  ;  and  the  jealousies  of  these 
rival  houses  now  endangered  her  prosperity  and  paved 
the  way  for  the  Norman  Conquest. 

To  the  north  of  the  Humber,  Northumbria  was  now  in 
the  hands  of  Siward  the  Dane,  and,  true  to 
Northumbria.  j)anjsj1  memories,  was  more  independent 
than  any  other  part  of  England,  though  still  nominally 
subject  to  Edward  the  king. 


104^-105 1  •  Review  of  English  History. 


1x9 


Wessex. 


In  the  centre  of  England,  Leofric  and  his  wife  Lady 
Godiva  held  the  old  division  of  Mercia,  and 
bestowed  their  riches  with  boundless  lib-  Mercia, 

erality  on  ecclesiastical  foundations. 

In  the  south,  Godwine  ruled  the  old  king¬ 
dom  of  Wessex  :  while  his  son  Harold  held 
East  Anglia. 

Edward,  raised  to  the  throne  chiefly  through  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  Godwine,  shortly  married  his  daughter,  and  at 
first  ruled  England  leaning  on  the  assistance,  and  al¬ 
most  overshadowed  by  the  power  of  the  great  earl.  But 
this  ill-matched  union  was  not  based  upon  real  identity 
of  interest,  and  there  could  be  little  sympa¬ 
thy  between  them.  One  was  the  stout  0f  Godwine. 
Englishman  who  looked  with  jealousy  on  1042-1051. 
the  foreigners  pouring  into  England  and  holding  the 
highest  offices  of  state  and  church,  whose  cry  was 
"  England  for  the  English,”  and  who  might  have  said  in 
the  words  of  a  future  assertor  of  English  policy  against 
the  foreign-hearted  Henry  III.,  in  many  ways  the  anti¬ 
type  of  Edward,  “  Sir  king,  we  tell  you  that  the  policy  of 
the  foreigners  is  both  dangerous  to  yourself  and  fatal  to 
the  realm.  These  foreigners  hate  the  English,  and  when 
they  assert  their  rights  call  them  traitors.”  The  other 
was  the  weakly  king,  who,  careless  of  the  ultimate  re¬ 
sults  of  his  policy,  was  following  his  foolish  personal 
impulse,  and  calling  in  foreigners  to  sow  discord  in  his 
realm. 

Already  Robert  of  Jumieges,  a  Norman,  had  been 
advanced  to  the  See  of  Canterbury  ;  while  Raoul  the 
Staller,  and  a  host  of  other  foreigners,  sur¬ 
rounded  Edward  in  his  court,  and  threat-  j^milgesf 
ened  to  deprive  the  English  of  their  just 
rights  as  ministers  of  their  king.  The  old  suspicion  was 


I  20 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


now  again  revived  by  Robert  of  Jumieges,  “  who  did 
beat  into  the  king’s  head”  how  likely  it  was  that  his 
brother  had  come  to  his  death  through  Earl  Godwine. 
Plainly  there  was  cause  and  plenty  for  the  gradual  es¬ 
trangement  that  took  place  between  them. 

A  quarrel  brought  matters  to  a  crisis.  Eustace,  Count 
of  Boulogne,  a  foreigner,  but  brother-in-law  of  the  king, 
as  he  returned  from  a  visit  to  the  court,  demanded 
lodgings  for  his  retinue  of  the  city  of  Dover. 
The  burghers  remonstrated,  blows  ensued, 
and  the  Frenchmen  were  driven  with  shame 
and  loss  from  the  town.  Eustace  forthwith 
went  back  to  his  brother-in-law  and  demanded  ven¬ 
geance  for  the  insult.  Godwine  was  ordered,  as  Earl  of 
Wessex,  to  punish  the  rebellious  townsmen  of  Dover. 
He  refused,  claimed  a  legal  trial  for  the  citizens,  and 
demanded  that  the  foreigners  should  be  expelled  the 
country. 

Upon  this  the  king,  supported  by  Earls 
Godwine.  Leofric  and  Siward,  who  were  jealous  of  the 
'temporary  growing  family  of  Godwine,  revived  the 
Norman-  charge  of  the  murder  of  the  yEtheling  Alfred 
against  him,  and  banishing  him  and  his  sons, 
obtained  a  sentence  of  outlawry  against  them.  Godwine, 
obliged  to  bow  before  the  united  power  of  his  enemies, 
was  forced  to  fly  the  land.  He  went  to  Flanders  with 
his  son  Swegen,  while  Harold  and  Leofwine  went  to 
Ireland,  to  be  well  received  by  Dermot  king  of  Leinster. 
Many  Englishmen  seem  to  have  followed  him  in  his 
exile :  for  a  year  the  foreign  party  was  triumphant,  and 
the  first  stage  of  the  Norman  Conquest  complete. 

It  was  at  this  important  crisis  that  William,  secure  at 
home,  visited  his  cousin  Edward.  He  had  not  hitherto 
taken  any  part  in  the  affairs  of  England.  He  had  been 


Quarrel 
between 
Edward  and 
Godwine. 
1051. 


1052.  Review  of  English  History. 

too  closely  employed  in  establishing  his  own 
authority  to  look  abroad,  and  the  accession 
of  Edward  had  taken  place  without  any 
aid  of  his.  But  friendly  relations  we  may  be  sure  had 
existed  between  the  two  cousins,  and  if,  as  is  not  im¬ 
probable,  William  had  begun  to  hope  that  he  might 
some  day  succeed  to  the  English  throne,  what  more 
favourable  opportunity  for  a  visit  could  have  been 
found  ? 

Edward  had  lost  all  hopes  of  ever  having  any  children. 
Edward  the  ^Etheling,  the  direct  heir  as  son  of  Edmund 
Ironsides,  was  far  away  in  Hungary,  and  now  the  Eng¬ 
lish  party  had  been  overthrown,  and  the  Norman  party 
triumphed.  William  came,  and,  it  would 
seem,  gained  all  that  he  desired.  For  this  promise  to 
most  probably  was  the  date  of  some  promise  Wllllam' 
on  Edward’s  part  that  William  should  succeed  him  on 
his  death.  The  whole  question  is  beset  with  difficulties. 
The  Norman  chroniclers  alone  mention  it,  and  give  no 
dates.  Edward  had  no  right  to  will  away  his  crown, 
the  disposition  of  which  lay  with  King  and  Witenagemot 
(or  assembly  of  Wise  Men,  the  grandees  of  the  country), 
and  his  last  act  was  to  reverse  the  promise,  if  ever  given 
in  favour  of  Harold,  Godwine’s  son.  But  were  it  not  for 
some  such  promise  it  is  hard  to  see  how  William  could 
have  subsequently  made  the  Normans  and  the  world 
believe  in  the  sacredness  of  his  claim ;  and  it  was 
not  unlike  the  character  of  Edward  to  follow  the  tem¬ 
porary  impulse  of  his  feelings,  then  full  set  against  the 
family  of  Godwine,  and  to  promise  the  crown  to  William, 
the  best  representative  of  those  Norman  tastes  and  ideas 
which  he  loved  so  well. 

William  returned  to  Normandy ;  but  next  year  Ed¬ 
ward  was  forced  to  change  his  policy,  and  the  attempt 


121 


Visit  of 
William  to 
England. 


The  Normans  in  Europe.  a.  d. 

of  the  French  party  to  win  England  for 
their  own  was  found  to  be  premature.  The 
English  sympathies  of  the  people  were  too 
strongly  rooted  to  endure  the  exile  of  God- 
wine,  the  representative  of  their  party ;  and 
the  king,  deaf  for  a  time  to  the  petitions  from  Henry  I. 
of  France  and  Baldwin  of  Flanders  in  favour  of  the 
great  earl,  was  forced  by  the  successful  expedition  of 
Godvvine  and  the  seizure  of  London,  which  declared  for 
him,  to  submit  to  his  return. 

A  reconciliation  followed,  when  Godwine  solemnly 
cleared  himself,  by  oath  in  a  public  assembly,  of  any 
complicity  in  the  death  of  young  Alfred.  (Cf.  p.  117.) 

The  English  party  thus  once  more  triumphant,  a 
general  flight  of  foreigners  ensued.  Robert  of  Jumieges, 
the  Norman  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the 
foreigners!*6  leader  of  the  Norman  favourites,  in  haste 
quitted  his  See  and  the  soil  of  England,  says 
the  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle,  “  leaving  behind  him  his 
pall  and  all  his  Christendom  here  in  the  land,  even  as 
God  willed  it,  because  he  had  taken  upon  him  that 
worship  as  God  willed  it  not,”  and  was  deposed  from 
his  primacy  “because  he  had  done  most  to  cause  strife 
between  Earl  Godwine  and  the  king.”  He  was  succeeded 
in  the  primacy  by  the  Anglo-Saxon  Stigand,  once  the 
chaplain  of  Queen  Emma.  The  party  of  Godwine  once 
Death  of  more  ruled  supreme,  and  no  mention  was 
Godwine.  made  of  the  gift  of  the  crown  to  William. 

Godwine,  indeed,  did  not  long  survive  his 
restoration,  but  dying  the  year  after,  1053,  left  his  son 
Harold  Earl  of  the  West-Saxons,  and  the  most  important 
man  in  England. 


122 


Return  of 
Godwine. 
Triumph  of 
the  English 
party. 

1052. 


i053- 


William  in  Normandy. 


*-3 


CHAPTER  XI. 

LATER  YEARS  OF  WIILIAM  IN  NORMANDY. 

William,  warned  by  the  experience  of  his  own  early 
life,  had  for  some  time  been  eager  to  find  a 
wife  who  should  bear  him  an  heir.  This  ^fa\viUiamS 
was  not  of  more  importance  to  William  than  njJndy' 
to  Normandy  itself.  There  was,  indeed,  no 
illegitimate  son  to  succeed  his  father  or  to  dispute  the 
claim  with  a  legitimate  son,  for  William,  in  a  profligate 
age,  was  severely  pure.  But  the  absence  of  a  lawful 
heir  meant  nothing  but  a  repetition  of  anarchy  at  his 
death. 

His  choice  had  fallen  on  Matilda,  daughter  of  Baldwin 
de  Lisle,  Count  of  Flanders,  and  a  better  choice  could 
not  have  been  made.  The  Counts  of 
Flanders  assumed  at  that  time  almost  a  Matilda  of 
princely  position.  They  could  count  among  Flanders, 
their  ancestors  on  the  spindle  side  the  Kings 
of  Wessex,  Italy  and  Burgundy,  and  even  claimed 
descent  from  Charles  the  Great  himself.  Their  position 
as  Counts  of  the  border-land  between  France  and 
Germany,  stretching  from  Calais  almost  to  the  Rhine, 
made  them  peers  of  the  Empire  and  of  France,  and 
assured  them  a  most  important  position  in  either  country. 

To  William  the  alliance  of  Flanders,  divided  as  it  was 
from  Normandy  only  by  the  narrow  strip  of  Ponthieu 
and  Boulogne,  would  be  most  valuable,  and  the  direct 
descent  of  Matilda  on  the  mother’s  side  from  Alfred  of 
England  himself,  might  be  thought  to  add  to  William's 
future  claim  on  England. 


124 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Pope  op¬ 
poses  the 
marriage. 


The  duke’s  interest  clearly  pointed  to  the  marriage, 
and  this,  as  well  as  his  genuine  love  for  Matilda,  must 
explain  the  tenacity  with  which  he  clung  to  it.  One 
obstacle,  however,  stood  in  his  way.  The 
Pope,  on  some  grounds  of  consanguinity, 
forbad  the  marriage.  It  is  not  clear  what 
those  grounds  were,  but  the  prerogative  claimed  by  the 
I  ope  in  such  matters  was  very  wide,  and  it  was  on  the 
whole  accepted  by  the  moral  consent  of  Europe.  Wil¬ 
liam,  however,  would  not  be  thwarted,  and,  after  a 
fruitless  attempt  to  gain  the  papal  dispensation,  he 
wedded  his  bride  in  the  teeth  of  papal  threats.  Then, 
Lanfranc  however,  an  unlooked-for  opponent  arose, 

denounces  Lanfranc,  Prior  of  Bee,  denounced  the 

it. 

marriage. 

This  was  the  first  introduction  of  William  to  one 
whose  future  history  is  so  closely  woven  with  his  own. 
William,  irritated  at  this  new-found  opponent,  ordered 
the  granges  of  the  abbey  to  be  fired,  and  Lanfranc  to 
quit  the  duchy.  But  here  the  wit  of  Lan- 
of  wliifam"  franc  stood  him  in  good  stead.  Overtaken 
by  the  duke  on  a  lame  horse,  he  bade  him 
see  how  implicitly  his  commands  were  obeyed,  and 
“  Give  me  a  better  horse,"  he  said,  “and  I  shall  go  the 
speedier.”  The  duke,  with  a  laughing  reply  that  he 
was  the  first  criminal  who  had  dared  to  ask  a  boon  of 
him,  stopped  the  fugitive ;  Lanfranc  gained 

William  and  .  ,  r  .  . 

Lanfranc  the  opportunity  he  desired  or  speaking 

reconciled.  personally  with  the  duke,  promised  to 

support  his  cause,  and  soon  after  obtained  the  papal 

dispensation.  From  that  moment  he  became  his  most 

trusted  counsellor  both  in  church  and  state. 

We  have  dwelt  somewhat  in  detail  on  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  this  eventful  marriage,  because  it  was  the 


I053- 


William  in  Normandy. 


I25 


Importance 
of  the  mar¬ 
riage. 


cause  of  the  friendship  of  these  two  men,  a  friendship 
fraught  with  momentous  consequences.  Also  because 
the  marriage  itself  marks  a  definite  step  in  William’s 
career.  By  it  the  ancient  hostility  between 
Normandy  and  Flanders,  born  of  the  mur¬ 
der  of  William  Longsword  by  Count  Arnulf, 
was  fairly  laid.  The  duke’s  position  was  strengthened 
by  a  powerful  alliance,  a  link  was  added  to  his  claim  on 
England,  and  that  bond  was  begun  between  Flanders 
and  the  future  conqueror  of  England  which  was  here¬ 
after  to  be  drawn  closer  by  the  commercial  interests  of 
the  two  countries,  and  to  be  productive  of  great  results 
in  the  history  of  our  island.  .  , 

We  have  now  come  to  an  important  crisis  in  the 
relations  between  Normandy  and  France. 

J  Change  m 

Since  the  days  of  Richard  the  Fearless,  an  relations 
alliance  of  the  strictest  kind  had  existed  France  and 

between  the  dukes  and  their  over-lord  at  Normandy. 

Paris — an  alliance  founded  upon  mutual  interests.  By 
the  help  of  the  Capetian  kings,  the  Dukes  of  Normandy 
had  risen  to  be  the  first  peers  of  France,  while  to  the 
Duke  of  Normandy  the  kings  of  Paris  had  owed  their 
throne,  and  the  establishment  of  their  authority  against 
their  neighbouring  foes.  Henry  himself  had  gained  his 
crown  against  his  brother  Robert  chiefly  through  the 
influence  of  Robert  the  Devil,  and  hitherto,  except  for  a 
brief  period  during  the  minority  of  the  duke,  had  re¬ 
quited  that  assistance  by  supporting  William. 

But  now  their  interests  were  split,  and  henceforth  this 
friendship  is  changed  for  the  most  bitter  hostility.  The 
reason  is  not  far  to  seek.  The  Duke  of 
Normandy  had  become  too  powerful.  Mas-  ^easF s  for 

J  r  the  change. 

ter  of  a  rich  and  fertile  country,  running 

from  the  County  of  Ponthieu  to  the  confines  of  Brittany, 


126 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


and  from  the  sea  to  the  very  gates  of  Paris,  they  held 
the  keys  of  royal  France.  They  shut  the  king  out  from 
all  hopes  of  advancing  to  the  sea-coast,  and  commanded 
the  mouth  of  the  Seine  river,  on  which  Paris  stood. 
They  were  over-lords  of  Brittany,  and  closely  allied  by 
ties  of  marriage  with  that  country  as  well  as  with  Flan¬ 
ders  and  Ponthieu-  Even  in  later  days,  when  the  Kings 
of  Paris  ruled  over  most  of  the  present  France,  Nor¬ 
mandy,  in  wealth  and  importance,  though  not  in  extent, 
formed  a  third  part  of  the  kingdom  in  which  it  was 
merged.  From  this  we  may  judge  of  the  overwhelming 
power  of  the  duchy  when  the  royal  domains  were 
confined  to  a  narrow  strip  running  from  the  Somme 
to  the  Loire,  when  the  district  south  of  that  hardly 
acknowledged  the  king’s  supremacy  at  all,  and  when 
the  Counts  of  Flanders  and  Anjou,  and  the  Dukes  of 
Burgundy,  were  scarcely  less  powerful  than  their  suze¬ 
rain  himself.  If  the  royal  power  were  ever  to  increase, 
the  Duke  of  Normandy  must  be  humbled.  So  argued 
Henry,  and  forgetting  in  present  necessity  the  benefits 
heaped  upon  his  race  by  the  Norman  dukes,  requited 
them  by  the  most  inveterate  hostility.  From  this  day 
the  enmity  of  Normandy  and  France,  lulled  to  sleep 
since  the  early  days  of  William  Longsword,  began 
again,  was  transferred  to  England  when  Duke  William 
added  that  kingdom  to  his  dominions,  and  then,  taking 
the  form  of  national  antagonism,  lasted  on  with  hardly  a 
break  till  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century. 

Bent  thus  upon  humbling  the  dreaded  power  of  Nor¬ 
mandy,  Henry  is  found  supporting  against  the  duke  the 
Renewed  rebellions  which  now  and  again  break  forth, 
rebellion  and  joining  in  the  dangerous  coalition  which 
Ham  aided  by  the  jealousy  of  neighbouring  princes  raised 
toM-17,  against  him.  The  movement  extended  from 


io54_1°5^-  William  in  Normandy. 


127 


ducal  Burgundy  to  the  foot  of  the  Pyrenees.  The  Count 
of  Ponthieu,  Theobald  III.  of  Blois,  even  the  Duke  of 
Aquitaine  and  Count  of  Poictiers,  who  hitherto  had 
rarely  crossed  the  Loire,  joined  King  Henry  against  the 
Bastard  upstart. 

This  mighty  host  was  divided  into  two  detachments. 
One  under  Odo,  King  Henry’s  brother,  was  to  attack 
Normandy  from  the  north  by  way  of  Beau-  D  uMe 
vais,  and  to  advance  on  Rouen.  The  other,  invasion  of 
under  the  king  himself,  assembled  at  Man-  Normandy' 
tes,  and  was  to  march  on  Lisieux  and  the  sea.  Thus 
surrounded  by  his  foes,  the  Bastard  might,  they  hoped, 
be  utterly  crushed,  or  driven  to  the  west.  There,  shorn 
of  his  eastern  dominions,  the  flower  of  his  ducal  coronet, 
he  might  be  suffered  to  retain  the  districts  of  the  Bessin 
and  the  Cotentin,  while  the  old  grant  of  Charles  the 
Simple  should  be  restored  to  the  successors  of  his 
throne,  and  Normandy,  thus  humbled,  would  no  longer 
endanger  the  growing  power  of  the  king. 

Their  hopes  were  soon  rudely  to  be  overthrown  by  the 
strategy  of  Duke  William.  Advancing  himself  against 
the  king,  he  held  the  royal  forces  in  check  as  they 
crossed  the  border  to  the  south.  Meanwhile  his  forces, 
massed  under  his  most  trusty  leaders,  marched  against 
Odo,  surprised  him  in  the  town  of  Mortemer, 
and  cut  his  contingent  to  pieces.  A  mes¬ 
senger  despatched  by  the  duke  to  the  king 
rudely  awakened  him  from  his  slumbers  in 
morning  with  the  cry,  “Up,  up,  Frenchmen! 
too  long;  go  bury  your  friends  that  lie  dead  at  Mor¬ 
temer!”  A  panic  seized  the  royal  forces,  and  Normandy 
was  evacuated  without  a  blow  being  struck  Normandy  is 
against  the  duke  himself.  evacuated. 

0  .  I  hree  years 

Awed  by  William’s  superior  strategy,  peace, 

1055-1058. 


Battle  of 

Mortemer, 

I054-- 

the  grey 
ye  sleep 


128 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


which  hitherto  he  had  had  no  opportunity  of  displaying, 
the  coalition  melted  away,  and  William,  after  showing 
great  leniency  to  his  captive  foes,  enjoyed  three  years  of 
peace,  which  he  devoted  to  the  government  of  his  coun¬ 
try,  and  the  reform  of  ecclesiastical  abuses. 

The  peace  of  three  years  was  soon  over.  A  new 
coalition  now  arose  against  the  duke,  in  which  a  new 
enemy  appears — Geoffrey  of  Anjou. 

The  Counts  of  Anjou,  one  day  to  ascend  the  throne  of 
Retrospect  of  England  and  gain  the  realm  which  Normandy 
Angevin  J^to-  jlacj  won>  can  }je  traced  back  to  the  ninth  c.en- 
first  Count.  tury,  when  Charles  the  Bald  granted  a  do¬ 
minion  to  Ingelger,  a  Breton  woodman,  first  Count. 

For  a  century,  however,  they  bear  no  very  important 
part  in  French  affairs.  Their  district  was  a  small  one, 
marked  out  by  no  strong  natural  boundaries,  and  at  the 
end  of  the  tenth  century  they  were  entirely  overshadowed 
by  the  power  of  their  neighbours — the  Counts  of  Blois 
and  Champagne.  With  the  accession  of  Fulk  Nerra 
(the  Black),  their  destinies  began  to  rise. 
Fulk  Nerra.  Under  this  powerful  Count  we  first  see  that 
type  of  character  displayed  which  hence¬ 
forth  so  strongly  marked  his  race.  To  the  cool-headed 
and  clear-sighted  qualities  of  a  consummate  general  he 
added  a  power  of  organization,  a  faculty  of  statesmanship, 
and  an  unscrupulousness  in  the  choice  of  means  which 
soon  raised  Anjou  into  one  of  the  most  important  powers 
in  France,  and  which,  coupled  as  they  were  with  the  most 
savage  cruelty,  made  his  name  the  terror  of  those  days. 

His  long  reign  is  a  series  of  triumphs.  Brit- 
99*  tany  was  defeated  under  Conan.  Eudes 
of  Blois  was  humbled  at  Pontlevoi.  His 
dominions  were  extended  to  the  south  by  the  seizure  of 
Saumur  and  the  conquest  of  Touraine. 


1058-1060.  William  in  Normandy. 


129 


He  had  interfered  in  the  affairs  of  France  at  the  death 
of  Robert,  unsuccessfully  supporting  Queen  Constance 
and  her  second  son  Robert  against  King  Henry  (p.  88). 
On  his  death  he  handed  on  Anjou —  its  borders  ex¬ 
tended,  its  powers  consolidated — to  his  son  Geoffrey 
Martel  (the  Hammer),  a  man  hardly  his  inferior. 

Continuing  his  father’s  policy,  Geoffrey  had  wrested 
the  city  of  Tours,  the  last  city  of  Touraine  which  remained 
to  them,  from  the  house  of  Blois  (1044)  and 
this  aggression  had  brought  upon  him  the  Martef,y 
united  forces  of  Normandy  and  France,  1040-1060. 
then  allies. 

With  the  exception  of  this  short  quarrel,  Normandy 
and  Anjou  had  rarely  come  into  contact.  Their  do¬ 
minions  nowhere  touched  each  other ;  but  _ 

Dispute 

between  them  lay  the  County  of  Maine,  the  about 

possession  of  which  they  both  desired,  and 

which  henceforth  forms  a  constant  source  of  dispute. 

The  claims  of  William  to  the  County  were  founded 
upon  the  gift  of  Charles  the  Simple  to  Rollo.  This 
claim,  however,  had  been  little  more  than  nominal,  and 
was  now  disputed  by  Geoffrey  as  guardian  of  Hugh,  the 
young  Count  of  Maine. 

This  probably  had  been  the  motive  of  Geoffrey  in  sup¬ 
porting  the  rebels  of  Alencon  in  the  early  days  of 
William  (91),  a  quarrel  which  led  to  the  occupation  by 
William  of  the  castle  of  Domfront  on  the 
soil  of  Maine,  important  as  commanding  I048' 
the  valley  of  the  Mayenne,  to  the  west  of  the  northern 
frontier,  and  that  of  Ambrieres  on  the  Varenne  hard  by. 
Since  that  time  Geoffrey  had  in  vain  endeavoured  to 
regain  these  castles,  and  now  he  eagerly  embraced  the 
opportunity  of  humbling  his  powerful  rival, 
and  joined  the  King  of  France.  United  by  Henry  of 


130 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Geoffrey  of  tlreir  hostility  to  the  common  foe,  they  con- 
Anjou  certed  a  joint  invasion  of  the  duchy.  Enter- 

wfiHam.  ing  from  the  County  of  Hiesmes,  they  ad- 

1058-  vanced  on  Bayeux,  ravaging  as  they  went. 

Then  turning  to  the  south-east,  they  advanced  on  Caen, 
which  was  sacked.  They  now  intended  to  cross  the 
Dives,  and  harry  the  rich  district  of  Lisieux  to  the  east. 

Meanwhile  William,  entrenching  himself  in  his  own 
castle  of  Falaise,  had  coolly  waited  his  opportunity, 
determined  to  attack  them  as  they  returned  gorged  with 
spoil,  their  discipline  relaxed  by  success. 

The  hour  had  now  arrived.  Rapidly  marching  from 

Falaise,  he  came  upon  them  just  as  they  were  crossing 

the  Dives.  The  king  with  the  vanguard 

Vaio'-8le  had  ah'eady  passed  the  stream  and  as- 

Victory  of  cended  the  heights  which  overlook  the 

William. 

Dives  on  the  west  bank.  The  rest  were 
threading  their  way  along  a  narrow  causeway  which  led 
across  low  and  marshy  lands  on  the  left  bank.  The 
tide  was  rising,  and  the  ford  would  soon  become  im¬ 
passable.  This  was  the  moment  chosen  by  William  for 
his  attack,  and  the  result  was  decisive.  Huddled  together 
on  the  narrow  causeway,  swept  by  the  Norman  arrows 
which  we  find  here  first  mentioned,  the  main  body  of  the 
army  was  annihilated,  while  Henry,  prevented  by  the 
tide  which  now  had  risen  from  sending  aid,  looked  on  in 
helpless  rage  from  the  heights  beyond  at  the  ruin  of  his 
army. 

This  decisive  victory,  in  which  again  the  strategy  of 
the  duke  had  been  pre-eminently  displayed, 
Death  of  ended  the  war.  Peace  was  made,  and  two 

Henry  and 

Geoffrey,  years  afterwards  both  his  enemies  were 
removed  by  death. 

Henry  left  his  son  Philip  under  the  guardianship  of 


I060. 


1060-1063.  William  in  Normandy.  131 


the  Count  of  Flanders  his  brother-in-law,  father-in-law 


and  trusty  ally  of  William.  Geoffrey’s  do-  B  idwil  v 
minions  were  divided  by  his  nephews  Geof-  ofFianders, 
frey  and  Fulk  Rechin  ;  Anjou  and  Saintonge  fhe  young °f 
falling  to  the  former,  to  the  latter  the  city  Phlhp- 
and  County  of  Tours.  A  short  respite  from  war  ensued 
of  three  years’  duration.  During  that  time 

0  Three  years 

we  find  William  crushing  out  the  remaining  peace, 
seedsof  rebellion,  banishingturbulent  nobles  'o6°  IO°3' 
and  sternly  repressing  all  who  opposed  his  will.  This 
is  the  date  of  the  famous  ordinance  of  the  Curfew  bell, 


issued  at  the  synod  of  Caen.  By  this  a  bell 

was  to  be  rung  at  evening  when  prayers  f0gr,few  bel1, 

should  be  offered,  and  all  people  should 

get  themselves  within  and  shut  their  doors.  It  was  no 

doubt  resorted  to  as  a  system  of  police,  to  secure  the 


quiet  of  the  country,  and  was  subsequently  introduced 
by  William  into  England. 

Normandy  was  then  at  rest ;  not  so  the  busy  duke. 
The  County  of  Maine  had,  as  we  have  seen, 
long  been  an  object  of  desire,  and  now  an  Maine, eS'  °f 

opportunity  offered  to  establish  his  authority  Io63' 
there,  and  turn  the  vague  grant  to  Rollo  into  possession. 

We  last  left  Maine  in  the  hands  of  the  young  Count 


Hugh,  under  the  guardianship  of  Geoffrey, 
prematurely  in  1051,  and  Geoffrey  had  occu¬ 
pied  Le  Mans,  and  driven  out  the  widow 
and  children  of  Hugh.  But  on  the  death  of 
Geoffrey,  Herbert,  the  son  of  Hugh,  had  ap¬ 
pealed  to  William.  He  then  commended 
himself  to  the  duke,  offered  to  hold  Maine 
as  a  Norman  fief,  and  giving  his  sister 
Margaret  in  betrothal  to  Robert,  William’s 
eldest  son,  promised  him  the  succession  if 


Hugh  died 

I05I. 
Geoffrey 
occupies 
Maine  on 
death  of 
Count 
Hugh. 

1061. 

Herbert  of 
Maine 
appeals  to 
William  and 
consents  to 
hold  Maine 
of  him- 


132 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


r  '  I063. 
Herbert 
dies.  Wil¬ 
liam  claims 
Maine. 

He  is  op¬ 
posed  by 
Walter  of 
Mantes, 

1063. 


he  himself  should  die  childless.  Two  years 
afterwards  Herbert  died,  and  forthwith  Wil¬ 
liam  clamed  the  fulfilment  of  the  compact. 
The  house  of  Anjou  no  longer  disputed  his 
title  ;  but  within  the  County  the  people  re¬ 
fused  to  accept  the  Norman  duke,  and  as¬ 
serted  the  rights  of  Walter  Mantes,  the 
uncle,  by  marriage,  of  the  late  Count  Her¬ 
bert.  His  claim  had  no  support  but  the  wishes  of  the 
people.  Three  daughters,  of  whom  Margaret  was  one, 
were  still  alive,  and  their  title  at  least  was  better  than 
that  of  Walter.  Notwithstanding  this,  the  dread  of  the 
Norman  duke  raised  a  formidable  party,  and  war  be¬ 
came  inevitable  if  William  did  not  mean  to  be  baulked 
of  his  prey. 

Neglecting  the  city  of  Le  Mans,  William  ravaged  the 
rest  of  the  County,  and  by  the  terror  which  his  cruelty 
inspired  forced  Walter  to  surrender  the  city 
William  and  withdraw  his  claim.  Thus,  robbed  of 

invades 

Maine  and  their  leader,  Maine  submitted.  Walter  and 
l  mquL.b  u  jjjs  wjfe  soon  after  died,  some  said  poisoned 
by  the  duke,  and  Maine  at  last  was  added  to  the  ducal 
coronet. 

The  conquest  of  Maine  completes  the  history  of 
William  in  Normandy.  Important  as  that  acquisition 
was  in  itself,  it  is  more  important  as  forming  a  prelude 
to  the  Conquest  of  England,  on  which  our  attention  now 
centres. 


1052-1055-  The  Conquest  of  England. 


*33 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  CONQUEST  OF  ENGLAND. 

On  the  death  of  Godwine,  Harold  had  succeeded  to  his 
earldom  of  the  West  Saxons,  and  become  the  leading 
man  in  England.  Godwine  had  been  a  man 
of  ready  speech  and  policy,  but  Harold  was  supremacy 
a  man  of  action.  With  wider  sympathies  ^Harold  in 
and  knowledge  than  his  father,  he  showed 
a  more  conciliatory  spirit  towards  the  remnant  of  the 
Norman  party,  while  he  maintained  the  true  line  of 
English  policy.  In  the  years  that  followed,  the  power  of 
Harold  steadily  increased. 

In  1055  Siward,  Earl  of  Northumbria,  died,  and 
Northumbria  was  granted  to  Tostig,  Harold’s  brother, 
whereby  the  influence  of  his  house  was 
temporarily  extended  to  the  north,  while 
Gurth,  another  brother,  ruled  in  East  Ang¬ 
lia.  In  the  same  year  a  dangerous  com¬ 
petitor  for  the  throne  was  removed  by  death. 

Edward  the  HLtheling,  the  son  of  Edmund 
Ironsides,  had  been  recalled  from  Hungary 
by  the  Witan,  the  call  being  looked  upon  apparently  as 
equivalent  to  a  recognition  of  his  claim  to  the  succession. 
But  hardly  had  he  gained  the  shores  of  England  when 
he  died.  His  death,  lamented  by  the  English  chroniclers 
as  a  national  loss,  is  by  calumny  laid  by  them  to  the 
door  of  Harold,  as  that  of  the  ALtheling  Alfred  had  been 
attributed  to  Godwine.  No  doubt  Harold  was  the  chief 
gainer  by  his  death,  But  this  alone  cannot  be  considered 


1055. 

Tostig  gains 
Northum¬ 
bria  and 
Gurth  East 
Anglia. 
Death  of 
Edward  the 
^theling. 


*34 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


sufficient  to  establish  his  guilt,  and  Harold  certainly  was 
never  accused  of  it  during  his  life. 

By  the  death  of  Edward  the  ^Etheling,  Harold's  power 
was  still  further  increased.  Edgar  the  yEtheling  and 
Margaret  his  sister  now  alone  remained  of  the  hereditary 
line.  Of  these  one  was  a  woman,  and  no  instance  had 
yet  occurred  of  a  queen  sitting  on  the  English  throne. 

The  other  was  too  young  to  rule,  and,  if  we 
may  judge  from  his  subsequent  career,  too 
weak  to  lead  a  party.  From  this  date,  there¬ 
fore,  Harold  assumed  a  semi-royal  position. 
In  1062  we  find  him  engaging  in  a  Welsh  war,  and 
subduing  the  independent  princes  there,  a 
campaign  which  added  to  the  prestige  of 
his  name,  and  left  him  without  dispute  the 
greatest  man  in  England. 

Two  years  afterwards,  according  to  the  most  probable 
account,  Harold,  driven  by  stress  of  wea¬ 
ther  on  the  coast  of  Ponthieu,  was  seized  by 
its  Count.  No  sooner  did  William  hear  of 
this  than  he  demanded  and  obtained  his 
release;  and  then,  as  the  price  of  his  assist¬ 
ance,  extorted  an  oath  from  Harold,  soon 
to  be  used  against  him.  Harold,  it  is  said,  became  his 
man,  promised  to  marry  William’s  daughter  Adela,  to 
place  Dover  at  once  in  William’s  hands,  and  support  his 
claim  to  the  English  throne  on  Edward’s 
death.  By  a  stratagem  of  William’s,  the 
oath  was  unwittingly  taken  on  holy  relics,  hidden  by  the 
duke  under  the  table  on  which  Harold  laid  his  hands  to 
swear,  whereby,  according  to  the  notions  of  those  days, 
the  oath  was  rendered  more  binding.  Then,  after  aiding 
William  to  subdue  Conan  of  Brittany,  who  had  thrown 
off  his  allegiance  to  the  Duke,  he  returned  to  England. 


Harold 
assumes  a 
semi-royal 
position. 


1062.  His 
Welsh  war. 


1064. 
Harold, 
driven  on  to 
coast  of 
Ponthieu, 
falls  into 
William's 
hands. 


His  oath. 


io66. 


The  Conquest  of  England. 


*35 


Two  years  more,  and  Edward  the  Confessor  died. 
Since  the  return  of  Godwine  and  the  overthrow  of  th« 
Norman  party  he  had  let  things  go  as  they 
would,  and  as  death  drew  on  he  neglected  J??a,h  ?f  , 
more  and  more  the  affairs  of  state.  Wrapt  Confessor, 
up  in  deeds  of  devotion,  and  in  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  his  abbey  of  Westminster,  he  gave  his  kingdom 
hardly  a  thought,  and  passed  away  with  an  uncertain 
recommendation  of  Harold  to  the  Witan,  and  with  the 
gloomy  prophecy  on  his  lips  which  rang  the  death-knell 
of  his  race:  "Because  those  who  are  of  most  account 
in  this  kingdom — earls,  bishops,  abbots — are  not  what 
they  seem  to  be,  but  are  servants  of  the  devil,  God  has 
given  this  land  accursed  of  Him  into  the  hand  of  the 
enemy  within  a  year  and  a  day.’’ 

The  Witan  met.  No  mention  was  made  of  Edward’s 
promise  to  William  or  of  Harold’s  oath.  Voices  were 
raised  for  Edgar  the  yEtheling,  even  for  Duke  William  ; 
but  the  national  feeling  was  too  strong  to 
accept  the  latter,  and  Edgar  was  as  yet  a  ducted 
stripling,  and  unfit  to  rule  the  kingdom  at  Wltan- 
such  a  crisis.  If  the  royal  line  was  not  to  succeed,  who 
better  fitted  for  the  post  than  the  man  whom  Edward 
had  recommended  with  his  last  breath,  the  man  who  for 
the  last  ten  years  had  been  king  all  but  in  name  ? 

Harold  was  elected  king.  The  families  of  Siward  and 
Leofric  did  not  oppose  the  choice,  the  opposition  of 
Edwin  and  Morkar,  grandsons  of  Leofric,  who  now  held 
Northumbria,  being  perhaps  bought  off  by  the  marriage 
of  their  sister  Edith  to  Harold.  Thus  by  1066  the  house 
of  Godwine  was  seated  on  the  English  throne. 

By  this  act  the  Witan  reasserted  their  undoubted  right 
to  elect  the  king,  and  rejected  at  once  the  promise  of 
Edward  and  the  oath  of  Harold.  No  instance  had  yet 


i36 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


occurred,  indeed,  of  their  thus  electing  a  m-an  not  of 
princely  birth ;  but  in  the  case  of  Canute  they  had  es¬ 
tablished  their  right  to  depart  from  the  royal  line,  and 
in  choosing  Harold  they  best  consulted  England’s  inter¬ 
ests,  and  chose  the  man  in  whom  the  best  hope  for  the 
country  lay.  Hardly,  however,  was  Harold  on  the 
throne  than  he  was  called  to  support  his  claim  by  arms. 

His  brother  Tostig  had  been  deprived  of  Northumbria 
for  his  cruelty  and  oppression,  and  banished  the  realm 
(1065).  He  now  took  the  opportunity  to 
avenge  his  wrongs,  and  with  the  sanction 
of  William  ravaged  the  coast  of  England. 
Then,  forgetting  his  alliance  with  William, 
he  turned  to  Harald  Hardrada,  king  of  Norway,  with 
whom  he  agreed  to  divide  the  realm  of  England.  Thus, 
then,  this  knight  errant  of  the  eleventh  century,  who 
had  seen  Constantinople,  the  Holy  Land,  and  the 
southern  shores  of  Italy,  and  who,  once  a  landless 
wanderer,  had  now  secured  the  kingdom  of  Norway, 
hoped  to  regain  the  crown  of  England  once  held  by 
Canute.  He  came,  the  Saga  tells  us,  bringing  with  him 
a  mighty  ingot— so  large  that  twelve  strong  youths 
could  scarcely  bear  it — part  of  the  treasure  collected  in 
his  southern  expeditions,  a  treasure  which  was  to  pass 
as  the  reward  of  victory  first  to  the  English  Harold  and 
then  to  William  the  Bastard.* 

The  invasion  of  Hardrada  apparently  had  no  connec¬ 
tion  with  that  of  William.  It  was  carried  out  without 
his  sanction,  perhaps  without  his  knowledge,  and  had  it 
been  successful,  Hardrada  would  certainly  have  resisted 
the  claims  of  the  Norman  duke.  As  it  turned  out,  however, 
by  calling  off  Harold's  attention  from  the  south  at  this 


1066. 

Invasion  of 
Tostig  and 
Harald 
Hardrada. 


*For  earlier  life  of  Harald  Hardrada,  cf.  p.  31. 


io66. 


Election  of  Harold. 


137 


Hardrada 
and  Tostig 
sail  up  the 
Humber  and 
land  near 
York,  which 
opens  its 
gates. 


moment,  it  materially  contributed  to  William’s  ultimate 
success.  The  invasion  was  a  formidable  one.  The  isles 
of  Shetland,  Orkney,  and  Iceland,  then  owing  nominal 
allegiance  to  Norway,  sent  their  contingent,  as  well  as 
the  Danish  settlers  in  Ireland.  Even  Malcolm  of  Scot¬ 
land,  who  owed  his  crown  to  English  help,  influenced 
by  his  marriage  with  a  princess  of  Orkney,  lent  his  aid. 

Hardrada,  having  first  touched  at  the  Orkneys  and 
Shetlands  to  collect  his  forces,  sailed  south 
past  the  mouth  of  the  Tyne,  thence  to  Scar¬ 
borough  and  to  the  Humber,  ravaging  as  he 
went.  Then,  advancing  up  the  Humber, 
he  landed  at  Riccall,  near  York.  In  vain 
the  Earls  Edwin  and  Morkar  attempted  to 
defend  their  earldom;  they  were  defeated,  and  even 
York  opened  its  gates. 

But  the  triumph  of  Hardrada  was  short-lived.  Harold, 
hearing  of  the  danger,  at  once  marched  north,  and 
meeting  his  foes  at  Stamford  Bridge,  won  a  decisive 
victory.  Tostig  and  Hardrada  both  fell,  and  the  offer 
of  Harold  when  treating  before  the  battle,  to  give  the 
King  of  Norway  seven  feet  of  earth  or  a 
little  more,  as  he  was  taller  than  other  men, 
was  literally  fulfilled.  From  the  victorious 
battle-field  of  Stamford  Bridge  Harold  was 
recalled  by  the  news  that  William  had 
already  landed  on  the  shores  of  Wessex  to 
dispute  his  claim. 

William  was  hunting  in  the  forest  of  Rouen  when  he 
heard  the  news  of  Harold’s  election.  He  at  once 
affected  the  most  unfeigned  astonishment, 
denounced  Harold  as  a  perjured  man,  and  indignation 
drawing  up  a  specious  claim,  appealed  to  ofHarofd  s 
Christendom.  In  this  appeal  the  wily 


Harold  wins 
the  battle  of 
Stamford 
Bridge. 
Death  of 
Tostig  and 
Harald 
Hardrada. 


accession. 


A.  D. 


138  The  Normans  in  Europe. 

He  appeals  to  diplomacy  of  William  and  his  two  chief 
Christendom.  p  J 

friends,  Lanfranc  and  William  Fitz-Osbern, 
is  strongly  illustrated.  He  declared  himself  to  be  hered¬ 
itary  heir  in  his  own  right  and  that  of  his  wife,  and  thus 
appealed  to  the  idea  of  hereditary  succession  then 
growing  in  Europe.  The  religious  feelings  of  the  day 
were  enlisted  by  his  assumption  of  the  position  of  an 
injured  man  punishing  the  false,  perjured  Harold.  The 
Normans  he  reminded  of  the  ill-feeling  which  had  ex¬ 
isted  since  his  father’s  attempted  invasion,  and  the 
insults  they  had  to  avenge  ;  the  murder  of  the  zEtheling 
Alfred  when  supported  by  Norman  arms ;  the  outrage 
inflicted  on  Eustace  of  Boulogne  by  the  rude  citizens 
of  Dover ;  the  subsequent  deposition  of  a  Norman  arch¬ 
bishop,  Robert  of  Jumieges,  and  the  expulsion  of  the 
Normans  by  the  proud,  upstart  family  of  Godwine.  To 
the  Pope,  Alexander  II.,  and  his  great  minister  Hilde¬ 
brand,  he  speaks,  probably  at  the  suggestion  of  Lanfranc, 
of  his  invasion  as  a  great  missionary  work  which  shall 
purify  the  corrupted  Anglo-Saxon  state  and  church,  and 
bring  England  more  closely  under  the  sway  of  Rome. 
Thus,  having  united  the  suffrages  of  Europe,  he  rapidly 
gathered  an  army,  and  appealed  to  the  ordeal  of  battle 
in  vindication  of  his  claims. 

While,  then,  we  deny  absolutely  that  William,  had 
any  claim  to  the  throne  of  England,  we  must  at  least 
acknowledge  the  skill  by  which  he  gathered  up  the 
threads,  gave  to  his  unjust  claim  the  character  of  justice, 
and  overcame  the  opposition  of  the  Norman  nobles, 
many  of  whom  were  unwilling  to  join  in  the  enterprise. 
We  cannot  but  admire  the  masterly  statesmanship  by 
which,  in  the  face  of  an  ever-watchful  over-lord  at  Paris, 
he  was  enabled  to  gain  the  alliance,  passive  or  active, 
of  nearly  all  the  powers  of  northern  Europe,  and  pre- 


io66. 


The  Conquest  of  England. 


J39 


vented  the  Capetian  king  from  allying  himself  with 
Harold  or  making  a  diversion  by  an  attack  on  Nor¬ 
mandy. 

The  army  and  transports  were  collected  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Dives.  Thence  sailing  to  St.  Valery 
on  the  coast  of  Ponthieu,  William  waited  uon^for"  the 
until  the  south  wind  should  blow,  mean-  invasion, 
while  spurring  the  religious  enthusiasm  of  his  army  by 
frequent  religious  rites.  At  last  the  long 
wished-for  wind  arose,  and,  leaving  Nor¬ 
mandy  to  the  care  of  his  wife  Matilda,  he  sailed  for 
Pevensey. 

The  landing  was  effected  without  any  opposition. 
Harold  was  still  in  the  north,  and  had  failed  to  keep  an 
army  together  in  the  south.  As  William  „  ,  , 

stepped  upon  the  shore,  he  slipped  and  fell.  Pevensey 
The  cry  of  the  men,  “An  evil  omen  this  !”  vances  to 
was  answered  by  William’s  ready  wit.  “By  Hastings, 
the  splendour  of  God,”  said  William,  holding  up  a 
handful  of  earth  in  his  closed  fist,  “  I  have  taken  seisin 
of  my  kingdom.  The  earth  of  England  is  in  my  hands.’’ 
Then  ordering  his  ships  to  be  beached  and  dismasted, 
that  all  idea  of  retreat  might  be  prevented,  he  inarched 
forwards  to  Hastings. 

Meanwhile  the  forced  marches  of  Harold  had  brought 
him  to  the  south.  Northumbria  lent  him  no  aid.  The 
Earls  Edwin  and  Morkar  cared  little  for  the 
fate  of  Harold  or  the  south  of  England,  and 
thought  perhaps  that  the  struggle  might 
enable  them  to  divide  the  kingdom  and 
establish  their  own  authority  in  the  north. 

But  the  rest  of  England  readily  answered  to  his  call, 
and  with  his  army  thus  recruited,  Harold  marched  to 
the  hill  of  Senlac.  This  hill,  of  no  great  height,  forms 


Harold 
marches 
south,  and 
takes  up  his 
position  at 
Senlac. 


140 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


the  last  spur  of  the  Sussex  downs  running  from  the  west 
to  the  south-east.  Connected  with  the  higher  ground 
behind  by  a  narrow  neck,  it  commands  the  broken 
ground  at  its  foot,  and  stands  in  the  face  of  an  enemy 
approaching  from  the  south. 

The  spot  was  well  chosen,  and  here  Harold,  wisely 
deciding  to  await  the  Norman  onslaught,  formed  a  pali¬ 
sade  in  front  of  his  position,  just  below  the  crest  of  the 
hill  to  the  south.  His  army  was  composed  entirely  of 
footmen,  but  their  weapons  were  of  various  kinds. 
Most  had  javelins  and  clubs,  some  only  pitchforks, 
staves,  and  stones.  These  he  marshalled  to  the  right 
and  left,  while  he  himself,  surrounded  by  his  own 
“house  carls”  or  body  guard,  and  the  chosen  warriors 
of  Kent,  Essex,  and  London,  formed  the  centre  round 
the  golden  dragon  of  Wessex  and  the  royal  standard. 
These  were  better  protected  with  helmets,  coats  of  mail, 
and  shields.  They  wielded  javelins  and  a  double- 
handed  axe,  a  formidable  weapon  which  struck  down 
horse  and  man  at  a  blow.  The  strength  of  the  English 
plainly  lay  in  the  closeness  of  their  array  and  their 
defensive  position.  If  the  battle  were  to  be  won  at  all, 
this  must  be  broken  through,  and,  if  possible,  the 
English  induced  to  leave  their  vantage  ground. 

William’s  quick  eye  at  once  discerned  this,  and  he 
made  his  dispositions  accordingly.  His  army  w'as 
divided  into  three  divisions.  The  Bretons,  under  Count 
Alan,  on  the  left,  the  French  and  other  mercenaries, 
,  .  „  under  Roger  of  Montgomery,  on  the  right. 

William’s  °  , 

disposition  of  These  were  to  attack  the  English  on  the 

ins  troops.  flanks,  while  William,  with  his  Norman 

troops,  was  to  advance  against  the  chosen  men  of 

Harold,  and  penetrate  to  the  royal  standard  itself.  These 

divisions  each  consisted  of  three  different  lines.  First 


io66. 


The  Conquest  of  England. 


141 


came  the  archers,  slingers,  and  bowmen,  thrown  out  in 
skirmishing  order  to  harass  the  foe,  and  disorder  their 
close  array;  next  the  heavy-armed  infantry  who  might 
support  their  attack,  and  by  breaking  through  the  pali¬ 
sades  prepare  the  way  for  the  mounted  knights  who 
formed  the  third  line. 

The  preceding  night  had  been  passed  in  different 
ways  by  the  two  armies  The  English  eat,  drank,  and 
sang  their  national  songs.  The  Normans  prayed  and 
confessed  their  sins.  The  Norman  prelates,  Geoffrey 
of  Coutances,  and  Odo  of  Bayeux,  William’s  half- 
brother,  were  with  the  army,  and  William,  anxious  to 
maintain  the  character  of  a  leader  in  a  religious  war, 
stimulated  his  soldiers  to  vows  and  acts  of  devotion. 

Thus  morning  arose  upon  the  opposing  hosts.  Then 
William,  reminding  his  soldiers  that  they  came  to  punish 
the  perjury  of  Harold  and  to  wipe  out  the 
insults  they  had  suffered,  vowed  to  found  an  J1'1:  attack 

J  %  begins. 

abbey  on  the  battle-field  if  God  should 
favour  his  cause,  and  order  the  attack.  The  archers  led 
the  way,  and,  discharging  heavy  flights  of  arrows, 
covered  the  advance  of  the  heavy  infantry.  This,  how¬ 
ever,  failed  to  break  through  the  palisades,  and  when  the 
cavalry  charged,  they  too  were  beaten  back.  Then 
with  loud  cries  of  “Out,  out!”  the  English  attacked  the 
Bretons  on  the  left,  who  broke  and  fled. 

The  first  charge  had  failed.  William  had  fallen,  it 
was  said,  and  all  seemed  lost.  At  this  crisis  the  bravery 
of  William  saved  the  day.  While  Odo  rallied  the 
fugitives,  William  tore  his  helmet  from  his  head,  crying. 
“I  live,  and  by  God’s  grace  I  will  conquer  yet!"  and 
once  more  led  the  attack.  His  horse  fell,  pierced  by  the 
javelin  of  Gurth,  Harold’s  brother.  He  rose  to  his  feet 
and  felled  his  adversary  with  his  mace,  while  Leofwine, 


142 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


another  brother,  was  smitten  by  an  unknown  hand. 
Then  seizing  a  stray  horse,  once  more  he  led  the  cavalry 
on.  In  vain  they  threw  themselves  upon  the  serried 
ranks  of  the  English,  whose  close  array  and  greater 
weight  told  upon  their  foes,  and  the  second  attack  was 
repulsed.  The  position  was  too  strong  to  be  gained  by 
force.  This  William  saw  and  had  recourse  to  stratagem. 
Ordering  a  feigned  retreat,  he  induced  the  English  to 
leave  their  vantage  ground  and  rush  down  with  shouts 
of  victory.  Then  William  turned,  and,  charging  the 
broken  ranks  unprotected  by  the  palisades  which  they 
had  left  behind  them,  began  to  pierce  the  opposing 
masses.  Still  the  English  rallied.  They  formed  a  close 
array,  and  locking  their  shields  together,  stood  their 
ground.  Their  wings  were  broken,  and  many  an  Eng¬ 
lishman  had  died,  but  the  centre  still  stood  firm ;  still 
the  standard  waved  where  Harold  fought. 

One  more  device  remained,  and  William  seized  upon 
it.  The  arrows  could  not  pierce  the  English  shields.  He 
therefore  gave  the  order  to  shoot  up  into  the  air.  The 
effect  was  instantaneous.  Helmets  were  pierced,  eyes 
were  put  out,  and  the  English,  raising  their  shields  to 
protect  their  heads,  were  overthrown  by  a  renewed 
attack  of  infantry  and  cavalry. 

As  the  sun  went  down,  an  arrow  pierced  Harold’s  eye. 
The  Normans  closed  in  upon  the  standard.  The  rest  of 
the  English  army  broke  and  fled,  and  night 
Harold  slam,  foun(j  William  victorious  on  the  field  of 
Senlac.  In  the  morning  the  body  of  Harold  was  found 
where  the  standard  stood,  and,  by  the  orders  of  William, 
obtained  a  decent  burial.  Thus  ended  the  battle  of 
Hastings,  a  battle  between  the  old  world 
the  battle.  and  the  new,  of  infantry  armed  with  battle- 
axe,  javelin,  and  pointed  stake  against  the 


io66. 


The  Conquest  of  England. 


M3 


William 
secures  the 
south-east 
and 

marches  on 
London. 


archers  and  the  cavalry  of  the  Normans.  Two  centuries 
at  least  were  to  pass  before  infantry  learnt  how  to  face 
the  feudal  array,  and  wiped  out  on  the  fields  of  Bannock¬ 
burn  and  Courtrai  the  disgrace  which  Hastings  cast  upon 
their  arms. 

The  battle  of  Hastings  won,  the  next  object  of  William 
was  to  secure  the  south-east,  and  especially  Dover  and 
Romney,  the  two  most  important  of  the 
Cinque  Ports,  commanding,  as  they  did, 
the  communication  with  the  Continent. 

Thither,  then,  he  directed  his  march,  and 
not  till  he  had  received  the  submission  of 
these  places,  as  well  as  that  of  Canterbury  and  Win¬ 
chester,  the  real  capital  of  England,  did  he  turn  north 
to  London. 

The  great  want  of  the  English  after  the  death  of 
Harold  lay  in  the  absence  of  a  national  leader.  Had  an 
Alfred  or  an  Edmund  Ironside  arisen,  William  might 
yet  have  been  driven  from  English  soil ;  but  in  her 
greatest  time  of  need  no  such  man  appeared.  England 
might  have  looked  to  some  member  of  the  three  great 
families — Godwine,  Siward,  Leofric — who  had  for  so 
long  shared  the  chief  power  in  the  land.  Harold's 
brothers,  however,  had  fallen  with  him  on  the  field  of 
Senlac.  Of  his  sons  no  mention  was  ever  made;  no 
candidate  from  the  house  of  Godwine,  therefore,  was 
forthcoming.  Of  the  other  two,  Waltheof,  the  son  of 
Siward,  had  not  yet  made  himself  a  name, 
and  although  Edwin  and  Morkar,  the  grand¬ 
sons  of  Leofric,  would  gladly  enough  have 
accepted  the  crown,  their  Mercian  interests 
by  no  means  tallied  with  those  of  Wessex. 

Once  more  men  looked  to  the  royal  line,  and  the 
ALtheling  Edgar,  the  grandson  of  Edmund  Ironside,  boy 


Edgar  the 
/Etheling 
chosen  king, 
but  is  soon 
abandoned 
for  William. 


144 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


though  he  was,  was  chosen  king.  Such  a  leader  did  but 
weaken  the  national  cause,  and  no  sooner  did  William 
approach  the  city  of  London  than  all  op¬ 
position  faded  away.  The  northern  earls, 
Edwin  and  Morkar,  would  hazard  nothing, 
and,  dismayed  by  William’s  advance,  made 
haste  to  retreat  northwards.  The  bishops,  after  a  brief 
display  of  resistance,  counselled  submission.  The  Witan 
sent  in  their  adhesion  to  William,  and  at  Christmas  his 
coronation  finally  made  him  King  of  England. 

Thus  ended  the  national  resistance  of  England.  But 
the  country  was  by  no  means  conquered.  East  of  a  line 
from  Norwich  to  Dorsetshire  William  was 
Work  yet  to  king.  All  north  and  west  of  that  was  yet 

be  done.  °  J 

to  be  won. 

The  national  differences  still  surviving  the  Danish 
Conquest  forbade  the  north  to  follow  the  lead  of  the 
south,  and  in  the  west  the  old  spirit  of  independence 
which  had  so  long  struggled  against  Wessex,  lasted  on. 
As  in  the  time  of  Alfred  and  of  Edmund  Ironside, 
England  had  been  conquered  chiefly  through  her  want 
of  unity.  Too  little  united  to  join  against  the  common 
foe,  she  had  allowed  Harold  to  be  defeated  at  Hastings  ; 
but  her  very  want  of  unity  led  many  to  refuse  the  deci¬ 
sion  of  a  battle  in  which  they  had  taken  no  share. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  policy  of  William  is 
somewhat  difficult  to  justify.  At  Christmas  he  was 
crowned.  In  the  following  March  we  find 

William  .  .. 

leaves  Eng-  him  leaving  for  Normandy,  and  relieving 
Normandy.  the  anxiety  of  his  wife  Matilda  whom  he 
io67-  had  left  as  regent.  The  apparent  quiet  of 
the  country  may  have  lulled  him  into  a  fancied  security. 
The  probable  leaders  of  revolt,  Edwin,  Morkar,  Wal- 
theof,  had  submitted,  and  these  he  intended  to  take  with 


William 
king  of 
England, 
Christmas 
1066. 


1067. 


The  Conquest  of  England. 


145 


The  English 
rebel. 


him  as  hostages ;  possibly  the  step  was  taken  with  the 
intention  of  testing  the  fidelity  of  the  English.  Having 
therefore  granted  a  charter  to  London,  and  appointed 
William  Fitzosbern  Earl  of  Herefordshire,  and  Odo 
Bishop  of  Bayeux,  his  half-brothers,  regents,  he  left 
England  for  his  duchy. 

He  was  not  long  left  in  doubt.  His  own  master-hand 
removed,  the  spirit  of  revolt  revived.  The  government 
of  the  regents  seems  to  have  been  needlessly 
harsh,  and  numerous  local  risings  which 
only  wanted  unity  of  action  to  be  really  for¬ 
midable,  threatened  the  stability  of  his  newly  won 
throne. 

The  men  of  Kent  united  with  Eustace  of  Eustace  of dtr 

Boulogne,  who  was  probably  actuated  by  ^“wfsumder 

jealousy  of  William,  and  attacked  the  Edric  the 
J  .  1  Wild.  At 

Cinque  Ports.  In  the  west,  the  English  and  Exeter  under 

Welsh  united  against  the  common  foe  under  0fHarold°  er 
Edric  the  Wild  and  the  prince  of  Wales, 
while  Exeter,  long  looked  upon  as  the  dowry  of  the 
queens  of  England,  rose  at  the  instigation  of  Githa,  the 
mother  of  Harold. 

William,  however,  did  not  hurry  back  till  the  danger 
of  foreign  aid  from  Norway  and  Denmark  warned  him 
that  he  must  strike  at  once.  The  country 
again  was  pacified,  but  no  sooner  did  the 
expected  help  from  Denmark  come  than 
revolt  became  once  more  general.  The 
sons  of  Harold  landed  in  Devonshire  with 
a  force  from  Ireland.  In  the  north,  the  two 
Earls  Edwin  and  Morkar,  gaining  the  aid  of  Malcolm 
of  Scotland,  already  the  husband  of  Margaret  sister  of 
Edgar  the  zEtheling,  threw  off  their  allegiance,  and  the 
fire  staff  passed  from  village  to  village  between  Tees  and 


They  gain 
aid  from 
Denmark 
and  Scot¬ 
land.  The 
revolt  be¬ 
comes  ' 
general. 


146 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Derwent.  Waltheof  held  out  at  York.  The  Danes, 
joined  by  Edgar  the  zEtheling,  ravaged  the  east  coast, 
and  Hereward,  the  last  representative  of  southern  resist¬ 
ance,  occupied  the  Isle  of  Ely. 

The  danger  was  indeed  great ;  but  it  served  only  to 
bring  out  more  strongly  the  superiority  of  William  as  a 
tactician  and  a  statesman,  while,  as  he  cast  off  all  hopes 
of  conciliation  his  character  becomes  more  stark  and 
stern. 

The  real  enemies  to  be  disposed  of  were  the  Danes. 
These  William  bought  off,  and  then  turning  upon  the 
disorganized  rebels,  by  a  series  of  masterly  marches  he 
defeated  them  in  detail.  Three  years  it  took  him  entirely 
to  put  down  the  rebellion;  but  by  1071  the 
last  element  of  resistance  was  crushed  out 
in  the  Isle  of  Ely,  and  England  lay  prostrate 
at  his  feet.  Then  crossing  the  Scottish  bor¬ 
der  and  the  Lowlands,  he  penetrated  to  the 
heart  of  Scotland  and  forced  Malcolm  to  swear  alle¬ 
giance. 


Danes  are 
bought  off 
and  the  re¬ 
bellion 
quelled. 

1071. 


The  country  had  suffered  terribly.  For  sixty  miles 
between  the  Humber  and  the  Tees  it  was  reduced  to  a 
wilderness,  and  many  English,  despairing  of  success,  left 
their  native  land,  some  to  settle  in  the  Lowlands,  where 
they  introduced  English  institutions,  some  to  wander 
away  to  Constantinople,  to  give  their  services  to  the 
Emperors  of  the  East  in  the  bands  of  the  Varangian 
Guards  and  defend  the  Eastern  Empire  from  the  attacks 
of  the  Normans  of  Apulia. 

By  1071,  then,  William  may  be  called  the  master  of 
England.  Edwin  had  fallen  in  a  skirmish,  Morkar, 
Waltheof,  and  Hereward  had  all  submitted ;  there  was 
no  one  to  lead  the  English  to  revolt.  The  only  part 
of  England  which  remained  unsubdued  was  the  ex- 


1071. 


The  Conquest  of  England. 


147 


creme  west.  This  was  not  finally  reduced  Wales  and  the 
till  io8i,the  date  which  also  saw  the  final  u^d'firiaiiy''8 
submission  of  the  Welsh.  reduced. 

In  tracing  the  course  of  William’s  Conquest  of  Eng¬ 
land,  we  are  struck  at  every  point  with  the  different 
genius  of  the  two  peoples.  We  see  the  Saxons  failing  in 
their  resistance,  brave  and  sturdy  though  it  was,  through 
their  strong  spirit  of  localization  and  consequent  want 
of  imperial  unity,  ever  the  secret  of  their  weakness  when 
called  upon  to  resist  their  foes :  the  Normans  excelling 
in  their  strong  organization  and  administration  execu¬ 
tive  and  military,  under  their  one  great  leader.  While 
above  all  rise  the  stern  features  of  William’s  character, 
with  his  unbending  will  and  masterly  qualities  of  general¬ 
ship  and  strategy. 

With  the  Conquest  of  England  the  Norman  power 
reached  its  zenith.  They  had  now  succeeded  to  the 
fairest  possession  of  their  forefathers  the  Northmen. 
Scotland  and  Ireland  were  yet  unwon,  and  on  Spain 
they  had  lost  their  hold;  but  England  and  the  northern 
shores  of  France  were  theirs,  while  in  the  south  they 
had  gained  Calabria  and  were  soon  to  be  masters  of 
Sicily.  (Cf.  p.  82.) 

The  Norman  name  was  now  known  to  the  whole  of 
Europe.  France,  Germany,  and  Italy  had  long  ac¬ 
knowledged  their  influence.  Constantinople  already 
dreaded  their  name,  and  was  soon  itself  to  be  attacked 
in  the  Crusades  by  a  mighty  coalition  led  by  them. 

Of  this  great  people  William  was  now  the  most  im¬ 
portant  figure.  His  countrymen  in  the  south,  though 
independent  of  him,  were  on  friendly  terms.  In  the 
north  he  held  a  kingdom  larger  than  that  of  any  of  his 
neighbours,  except  perhaps  the  Emperor,  while  his  suze¬ 
rain,  the  King  of  France,  he  fairly  outstripped  in  power. 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


1 48 


Here  then  it  will  be  well  to  pause  and  consider  the 
character  of  the  Conquest,  and  of  William’s  policy  to 
his  newly  acquired  country. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

william's  policy  towards  the  conquered 

COUNTRY. 

There  were  three  classes  in  the  country  with  whom 
William  had  to  deal,  and  these  for  convenience  sake  we 
will  take  in  order. 

To  understand  the  policy  of  the  Conqueror  towards 
the  English,  it  is  necessary  to  take  a  retrospect  of  their 
constitutional  history.  Anglo-Saxon  society, 
1  he  English,  by  the  time  the  English  Conquest  was  com¬ 
pleted,  consisted  of  four  ranks.  The  eorl,  or  noble  by 
birth;  the  ceorl,  or  free  by  birth;  the  laet, 
and  the  theow  or  slave.  Of  these  the  two 
former  only  were  considered  full  free.  The 
1st  was  really  an  inferior  ceorl,  enjoying 
personal  freedom,  but  holding  his  land  of 
some  lord  upon  whom  he  was  dependent. 
The  theow  or  slave,  a  small  unimportant  class,  consisted 
of  those  who  had  lost  their  liberty  for  debt  or  other 
causes.  The  two  latter  classes  were  probably,  in  the 
West  of  England  at  least,  largely  recruited  from  the 
conquered  Kelts.  The  tribes  thus  constituted  were 
commanded  by  leaders  who  appear  under 
The  Ealdor-  different  names.  Of  these  the  ealdorman 

man. 

Heretoga.  was  the  chief  magistrate  in  times  of  peace, 
the  heretoga  the  leader  in  war.  In  time 
these  two  offices  were  combined  in  one  person  under 
the  name  of  cyning  or  king. 


Condition  of 
English  at 
time  of  their 
first  settle¬ 
ment.  The 
eorl,  ceorl, 
theow. 


450-1066. 


Anglo-Saxon  Institutions. 


149 


The  mark  system,  or  custom  of  holding  lands  in  com¬ 
mon,  had  nearly  if  not  entirely  passed  away,  and  each 
freeman  had  a  right  to  a  certain  portion  of 
land  granted  out  to  him  after  the  conquest  J^ure  of 
of  the  country,  and  called  his  “allodial 
property.”  This  property,  the  possession  of  which  was 
a  necessary  condition  of  full  tribal  membership,  he  held 
in  full  ownership  without  any  rent  or  service,  except 
those  included  in  the  term  “  trinoda  necessitas,”  the  re¬ 
quirements  of  which  were  to  serve  in  the  national  mi¬ 
litia,  repair  roads  and  bridges,  and  keep  up  the  defences 
of  the  country. 

What  remained  after  this  allotment  was  called  the 
folk  land,  and  this  could  not  be  granted  out  to  any  without 
the  consent  of  the  whole  tribe  given  in  its  “gemot  ”  or 
assembly.  If  so  granted,  it  was  termed  “boc-land,"  or 
land  booked  out,  and  in  that  case  the  terms  of  tenure 
varied. 

The  people  settling  down  on  these  terms  formed  them¬ 
selves  into  political  self-governing  societies.  Of  these 
the  unit  was  the  township,  a  rural  division 
of  varying  limits  surrounded  by  the  tun,  or  town‘ 

quickset  hedge.  A  cluster  of  townships 
formed  the  hundred,  and  a  cluster  of  hundreds  the  shire. 
Each  of  these  had  their  separate  courts. 

In  the  court  of  the  township  all  the  freemen  of  the 
township  had  a  right  to  sit,  and  there  their  elected  re¬ 
presentative,  the  town  reeve,  settled  their 
petty  disputes,  collected  their  contributions  Unship th= 
to  the  revenue,  and  summoned  the  militia 
when  necessary. 

In  the  court  of  the  hundred  the  several  townships  of 
which  the  hundred  was  formed  were  represented  by 
their  parish  priest,  their  reeve,  the  lords  of  lands,  and 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.D. 


J5° 


The  Shire 
court. 


four  elected  men.  Its  presiding  magistrate 
Ccmrt  of  the  was  the  hundredman.  elected  in  the  Hun- 

hundred.  1 

dred  court.  But  the  judges  were  at  first 
the  whole  body  of  the  suitors,  and  subsequently  a  repre¬ 
sentative  body  of  twelve  men  capable  of  declaring  the 
law,  who  for  convenience  sake  were  entrusted  with  the 
judicial  business  of  the  hundred.  Here  more  important 
disputes  were  settled.  Theoretically  every  suit  began 
here,  and  an  appeal  lay  to  the  Shire  court.  The  hundred- 
man  led  the  hundred  to  the  militia,  and  the  hundred 
formed  the  basis  of  assessment  for  taxation. 

The  shire  was  probably  originally  the  sub-kingdom, 
and  the  shire  court  the  court  or  “  gemot "  of 
that  sub  kingdom.  But  as  the  separate 
kingdoms  became  united,  the  shire  became 
a  division  of  the  kingdom,  a  collection  of  hundreds,  and 
the  Shire  court  the  highest  and  most  important  of  the 
local  courts.  Its  suitors  were  the  same  as  those  of  the 
Hundred  courts  which  fell  within  the  shire.  Its  officers 
were  the  ealdorman,  the  sheriff  (shire-reeve),  and  the 
bishop.  Of  these,  the  ealdorman  represented  the  old 
sub-king,  who,  as  the  sub-kingdoms  were  gradually 
united,  became  a  national  officer.  He  was  appointed 
by  the  king  and  Witenagemot,  and  had  the  command  of 
the  whole  militia  of  the  shire.  The  sheriff  in  practice 
was  always  nominated  by  the  king,  and  was  his  judicial 
and  fiscal  officer,  collecting  the  royal  revenues  and 
presiding  in  the  court.  The  bishop,  sitting  with  the  other 
two,  decided  questions  of  ecclesiastical  law.  The  judges, 
as  was  universally  the  case  in  these  local  courts,  were  not 
the  officers,  but  all  the  suitors  to  the  court — that  is,  all  who 
had  a  right  to  sit  there.  Here,  however,  as  in  the  Hun¬ 
dred  court,  the  office  of  judges  was  subsequently  limited 
to  certain  representative  men,  often  twelve  in  number. 


450-1066.  Anglo-Saxon  Institutions.  15 1 

The  ecclesiastical  divisions  of  the  country  nearly  re¬ 
sembled  the  political.  The  parish  was  identical  with  the 
township  ;  the  bishopric  with  the  shire  ,  and  „  , 

1  1  .  .  Ecclesiasti- 

the  ecclesiastical  and  political  organization  cal  organi- 
borrowed  much  from  one  another. 

It  was  in  the  Shire  court  that  all  important  cases,  civil 
and  criminal,  were  decided.  An  appeal  lay  from  the 
inferior  courts  to  this  court,  while  from  the  Shire  court 
the  appeal  lay  to  the  king  in  the  Witenagemot. 

In  civil  matters  it  settled  disputes  and  wit-  Jurisdiction  of 

r  bhire  court — , 

nessed  transfers  of  land.  But  the  most  civil,  crimi- 
important  part  of  its  jurisdiction  was  the 
criminal. 

Let  us  then  suppose  the  offender  caught,  and  follow 
him  to  his  trial.  His  judges,  observe,  are  the  freemen 
of  the  district,  assembled  in  their  own  “folk- 
moot,’’  or  later,  the  twelve  representative  Mode  of 

’  r  procedure. 

men.  The  ealdorman,  sheriff,  and  bishop 
are  only  officers  of  the  court ;  they  preside  over  it,  and 
the  sheriff  sees  the  law  executed,  but  they  do  not  judge 
the  accused.  Here,  then,  in  the  very  origin  of  our 
history,  we  have  the  right  of  every  Englishman  to  be 
tried  by  his  peers. 

Now  the  accused  might  be  presented  for  trial  by  the 
judgment  of  the  Hundred  court.  In  that  case  he  was 
looked  upon  as  one  convicted  by  common  opinion,  and 
was  judged  accordingly.  He  might  indeed  appeal  to 
the  “ordeal,’’  a  form  of  trial  in  which  the  accused, 
appealing  to  the  judgment  of  God,  walked  across  red- 
hot  bars  of  iron  or  was  thrown  into  water.  But  even 
here,  if  he  escaped  unhurt,  he  was  still  considered  a  bad 
character,  and  though  relieved  from  greater  punishment 
had  to  fly  the  realm. 

But  next,  he  might  be  accused  by  a  private  individual. 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


*52 


In  that  case  he  was  allowed  to  bring  witnesses  called 
‘‘compurgators,”  people  who  swore  to  the  truth  of  his 
oath  and  thus  attested  the  respectable  character  of  the 
accused,  and  purged  him  from  the  imputations  cast 
upon  him.  Now,  if  the  accused  could  bring  enough  of 
those  compurgators  to  balance  the  evidence  of  the  other 
side,  he  would  be  acquitted,  and,  in  considering  the 
question,  the  popular  judges  estimated  the  weight  of 
each  compurgator  by  his  rank.  Thus  an  eorl’s  word 
would  be  as  valuable  as  that  of  six  ceorls,  and  an 
ealdorman’s  evidence  might  outweigh  that  of  a  whole 
township. 

No  doubt,  this  was  a  rough  and  ready  way  of  adminis¬ 
tering  justice,  and  there  may  have  been  a  temptation  to 
get  rid  by  this  means  of  an  unpopular  man  ;  but,  at  least, 
the  question  of  guilt  or  innocence  was  left  to  those  who 
were  most  likely  to  know  the  probabilities  of  the  case 
from  a  man’s  antecedents. 

Finally,  if  a  man  could  not  bring  sufficient  compur¬ 
gation,  he  might  go  to  the  ordeal,  and  if  he  passed  that 
safely  would  be  considered  acquitted  by  the  direct  inter¬ 
position  of  God. 

Punishment  generally  took  the  form  of  pecuniary 
fines,  that  of  death  being  unknown  except  in  cases  of 
treason,  sacrilege,  witchcraft,  and  theft  where 
merns*1  the  was  caught  in  the  act.  Injury  to 

life  and  limb  was  compounded  for  by  the 
wer-gild,  paid  to  the  injured  man,  or  to  his  family  in  case 
of  death,  and  the  wiht-geld,  or  fine  to  the  state.  The 
wer-gild  of  each  man  was  arranged  on  a  sliding  scale 
according  to  his  rank — that  of  an  eorl  being  greater  than 
that  of  a  ceorl,  and  so  on. 

The  system  of  police  bore  the  same  local  character 
which  we  have  seen  so  strongly  developed  in  the  Anglo- 


450-1066.  Anglo-Saxon  Institutions. 


x5  3 


Police. 


Frank-pledge. 


Saxon  institutions.  It  was  based  upon  the 
idea  of  mutual  responsibility.  For  this  pur¬ 
pose  the  hundreds  were  divided  into  tithings,  and  by  a 
law  of  Canute's  every  one  was  bound  to 
belong  to  a  tithing,  while  by  the  laws  of 
Edgar  every  landless  man  was  forced  to  have  a  lord  to 
answer  for  him  in  the  courts,  and  every  man  a  surety  to 
answer  for  him  if  he  were  absent  when  required. 

Such  was  the  local  and  judicial  organization  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  institutions  in  their  earliest  form.  But 
before  the  Norman  Conquest  several  modifications  had 
occurred.  These  will  best  be  summed  up  under  the 
heads — (1)  Growth  of  thaneship  ;  (2)  Rise  of  territorial 
jurisdiction  ;  (3)  Growth  of  towns  or  burghs. 

(1)  Growth,  of  Thaneship.  —  Side  by  side  with  the 
democratic  constitution  of  all  German  tribes,  there  had 
existed  a  peculiar  institution  known  as  the  Comitatus 
Each  ealdorman  or  king  was  allowed  to  collect  around 
him  a  body  of  personal  followers  called  his  gesiths,  or 
his  thanes;  representing  a  condition  of  things  not  un¬ 
like  that  described  in  the  Homeric  poems,  where  each 
chief  has  a  following  of  personal  attendants  called  his 
iralpm  or  companions.  These  warriors  were  bound  to 
their  lord  by  the  closest  ties  of  personal  dependence, 
and  after  the  conquest  received  grants,  either  from  the 
undivided  “  folk-land ’’ which  remained  over  after  the 
freemen  had  received  their  share,  or  on  the  domains  0/ 
the  ealdorman  or  king.  These  thanes  might  be  ceorls,  or 
eorls  themselves,  holding  lands  of  their  own,  or  might 
have  no  freehold  of  their  own  ;  in  either  case  they  were  at 
first  looked  upon  as  an  inferior  class  by  the  independent 
eorls  and  ceorls.  But  in  time,  as  the  power  of  the  king 
increased,  they  began  to  borrow  dignity  from  his  advance. 
In  times  of  war  such  nobles  by  service,  forming  chiefly 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


154 


a  military  class,  became  the  natural  leaders.  Their 
privileges  too  were  increased  by  the  royal 
The  thanes  grants.  From  them  the  king  chose  his 

supersede  0  0 

the  older  officers,  his  ealdormen,  sheriffs,  and  even 

bishops ;  and  thus  a  class  of  nobility  by 
service  arose,  which  in  the  end  superseded  entirely  the 
nobility  by  birth. 

The  custom  once  begun,  eorls  and  ceorls  pressed  into 
the  service  of  the  king.  The  ealdorman,  now  falling 
back  into  a  national  officer,  surrounded  himself  with 
thanes,  and  the  bishop’s  and  king’s  thanes  followed 
suit.  Then  the  eorls  and  ceorls,  abandoning  their  inde¬ 
pendence,  which  day  by  day  became  more  precarious, 
made  haste  to  commend  themselves  to  some  lord,  and 
in  return  for  the  commendation  received  the  benefit  of 
security. 

Meanwhile,  a  property  qualification  became  an  essen¬ 
tial  requirement  for  the  position  of  a  thane,  who  thus 
assumed  a  territorial  rather  than  a  personal  character. 

Finally,  under  Athelstan  the  principle  of  lordship 
became  compulsory.  Every  one  was  bound  to  attach 
himself  to  some  lord,  and  the  lordless  man 
was  looked  upon  as  an  outlaw. 

Under  these  influences  the  classes  of  eorl 
and  ceorl  entirely  passed  away.  The  class  of 
eorls  merged  into  that  of  thane,  a  term  which 
now  became  equivalent  to  noble  or  gentle,  while  the 
ceorls  either  became  thanes  or  were  degraded  into  a 
semi-servile  class. 

Thus  thaneship,  at  the  time  of  the  Norman  Conquest, 
had  become  the  central  institution  of  the  state,  and  the 
twofold  rank  of  eorl  and  ceorl  was  lost  in  that  of  thane. 

(2)  Rise  of  Territorial  Jurisdiction. — At  the  first  set¬ 
tlement  of  the  English,  the  greater  lords  had  enjoyed  in 


Thaneship 
gains  a  terri 
torial  char¬ 
acter  and 
becomes 
compulsory. 


x55 


450-1066.  Anglo-Saxon  Institutions. 

some  cases  independent  jurisdiction.  That  is  to  say, 
where  a  township  lay  on  their  property,  although  the 
constitution  was  the  same  as  in  the  free  township,  the 
reeve  was  appointed  by  them,  and  they  enjoyed  the  pri¬ 
vileges  and  undertook  the  duties  which  elsewhere  be¬ 
longed  to  the  freeholders.  Such  townships  virtually 
formed  manors,  though  the  name  itself  is  of  Norman 
origin  ;  and  as  the  principle  of  thaneship  grew,  these 
jurisdictions  increased,  partly  by  royal  grants,  partly  by 
commendation  of  whole  townships  to  a  neighbouring 
thane.  Gradually  by  the  grant  of  ‘‘sac  ”  (jurisdiction  in 
matters  of  dispute)  and  “  soc  ”  (the  right  of  holding 
courts  for  their  personal  and  territorial  dependants),  the 
thanes  gained  exemption  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Hundred  court,  though  still  subject  to  that  of  the  Shire, 
and  the  payments  formerly  due  to  the  Hundred  court 
were  now  made  to  the  thane.  Thus  their  territorial 
jurisdiction  rapidly  increased,  and  the  idea  of  possession 
of  land  and  jurisdiction  went  hand  in  hand;  these  pri¬ 
vate  jurisdictions  encroaching  largely  upon  the  popular 
courts. 

Meanwhile  the  jurisdiction  of  the  king  increased. 
From  being  merely  the  hearer  of  appeals  in  the  Wite- 
nagemot  he  began  to  be  looked  upon  as  the 
origin  of  all  justice.  The  number  of  pleas  royiu 'juris- 
reserved  to  the  crown  (“crown  pleas”)  in-  diction, 
creased,  and  these  were  judged  by  the  royal  officers  in 
the  local  courts. 

Lastly,  about  the  time  of  Canute,  the  king  in  some 
cases  delegated  his  powers  to  some  great  land-owner, 
who  thus  became  the  superior  judicial  officer  in  his  dis¬ 
trict,  superintended  the  popular  courts,  and  usurped 
their  rights. 

From  all  these  causes  the  lower  popular  courts  of 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


*56 


township  and  hundred  decreased  in  influence,  while  the 
manorial  courts  became  more  and  more  important,  and 
threatened,  at  the  time  of  the  Norman  Conquest,  soon 
to  supersede  them  entirely. 

(3)  Growth  op  Burghs. — The  growth  of  burghs  tended 
to  the  same  end.  Originally  the  Anglo  Saxons  were  not 
fond  of  municipal  life,  and  neglected  any  remains  of 
Roman  organization  which  may  have  survived  among 
the  British  after  the  Roman  occupation,  the-«township,  it 
must  be  remembered,  being  in  no  sense  a  town  as  we 
should  call  it,  but  a  rural  subdivision  of  the  free  commu¬ 
nity.  But  in  time  the  villages  grew  ;  the  smaller  "  burghs  ” 
became  a  kind  of  civic  township,  with  their  borough- 
moot  corresponding  to  the  rural  township  court;  the 
larger,  comprising  a  collection  of  townships,  each  with 
their  separate  borough-moot,  gained  an  organization 
similar  to  that  of  the  hundred,  with  their  Ward-mote  or 
civic  Hundred  court. 

These  larger  towns,  standing  apart  from  the  neigh¬ 
bouring  hundred,  would  enjoy  certain  rights  of  jurisdic¬ 
tion  independent  of  the  Hundred  but  subject  to  the 
Shire  court,  and  in  some  cases  paid  a  composition  by 
which  they  gained  immunity  from  arbitrary  exactions. 

By  the  time  of  the  Conquest,  therefore,  there  existed 
the  court  of  the  township,  manorial  courts,  and  the 
borough  courts;  above  these  the  Hundred 
at°tirne  of ftS  court>  from  the  jurisdiction  of  which  the  two 
Norman  latter  had,  perhaps,  to  some  extent  emanci¬ 
pated  themselves ;  and  above  all,  the  Shire 
court,  to  which  they  all  were  subject  and  to  which  the 
appeal  lay. 

The  local  government  stopped  at  the  Shire  court, 
the  central  was  entrusted  to  the  Witenagemot.  The 
institution  of  this  assembly  is  probably  due  to  a 


45°~i°66.  Anglo-Saxon  Institutions. 


1 5  7 


somewhat  later  date,  after  the  kingdom  had  1  he  w'ten- 
been  consolidated  and  the  power  of  the 
king  established.  It  was  therefore  the  creation  of  roy¬ 
alty,  and  not  a  representative  assembly.  On  great 
occasions,  indeed,  the  Witenagemot  was  attended  by  a 
concourse  of  people,  to  whom  its  decision  was  an¬ 
nounced,  and  who,  by  their  applause,  were  supposed  to 
give  the  national  assent.  But  none  had  any  right  to  sit, 
or  enjoyed  any  deliberative  vote,  except  the  counsellors 
of  the  king,  the  bishops,  the  ealdormen,  and  some  of 
the  greater  or  king’s  thanes. 

The  powers  assumed  by  this  body  were,  in  theory  at 
least,  very  extensive.  It  was  the  supreme  legislative  and 
deliberative  assembly  of  the  kingdom,  and 
the  court  of  final  appeal  in  judicial  matters.  5  powers' 
With  the  king  it  could  do  anything,  and  without  it 
nothing  of  importance  could  be  done.  The  king,  with 
its  counsel  and  consent,  passed  laws  ecclesiastical  as 
well  as  civil,  levied  taxes,  made  grants  out  of  the  folk- 
land,  deliberated  on  peace  or  war,  elected  bishops  and 
ealdormen,  and  carried  on  the  whole  machinery  of 
government.  It  even  claimed  and  exercised  the  right  of 
electing  and  deposing  the  king,  though  the  election  was 
by  custom  confined  to  the  royal  family,  with  a  presump¬ 
tion  in  favour  of  the  representative  of  the  eldest  branch, 
if  of  fit  age  and  character  to  govern,  and,  in  later  times 
at  least,  the  nomination  of  the  dying  king  was  held  to 
have  considerable  weight.  Still,  in  the  exceptional  cases 
of  Canute  and  his  sons  Harold  Harefoot  and  Harth- 
acnut,  and  of  Harold,  the  Witan  even  departed  from  the 
royal  line. 

The  constitutional  fabric  was  crowned  by  the  king 
himself.  From  the  position  of  mere  leader  of  his  tribe 
in  peace  and  war,  the  representative  of  his  people,  he 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


IS8 


The  king. 
Growth  of 
his  power. 


had,  by  the  gradual  consolidation  of  the 
kingdoms  into  one,  gained  a  constitutional 
and  territorial  position.  He  was  no  longer 
king  of  the  West  Saxons,  but  king  of  England.  He 
enjoyed  considerable  revenues,  and  had  a  large  private 
demesne,  which  in  those  days,  when  the  expenses  of 
government  were  small  owing  to  the  development  of 
local  organization,  made  him  almost  entirely  independ¬ 
ent  of  the  Witan  for  money. 

He  was  the  supreme  executive  officer  of  the  realm, 
and  all  paid  him  personal  allegiance,  while  in  his  cir¬ 
cuits  he  superseded  by  his  presence  the  powers  of  all  the 
local  courts.  Moreover,  as  we  draw  near  the  Norman 
Conquest,  we  find  his  powers  steadily  increasing.  The 
Witan  daily  became  a  narrower  body,  more  and  more 
the  mere  officers  of  royalty,  before  which  their  powers 
faded. 

The  “  folk-land  ”  was  now  considered  as  the  king’s 
royal  demesne,  and  practically  he  disposed  of  it  as  he 
would.  The  growth  of  thaneship  added  to  his  personal 
influence.  His  jurisdiction  grew  by  the  multiplication 
of  pleas  of  the  crown  and  by  the  extension  of  the  idea 
that  all  offences  were  violations  of  his  (the  king’s)  peace, 
and  with  the  development  of  the  territorial  idea  he  gra¬ 
dually  became  the  lord  of  his  people  and  their  land. 

The  question  now  arises,  Did  feudalism  exist  in  Eng¬ 
land  before  the  Norman  Conquest?  From  this  sketch 
it  will  be  seen  that  many  of  its  germs  at 
least  were  there.  The  personal  tie  was  to 
be  found  in  the  relation  of  lord  to  thane, 
and  the  thane  paid  service  to  his  lord,  espe¬ 
cially  his  “  heriot,”  or  gift  of  the  best  horse 
or  suit  of  armour  on  his  death.  Even  land 
was  sometimes  held  on  the  terms  of  military  service. 


How  far 
feudalism 
existed  in 
England 
anterior  to 
the  Norman 
Conquest. 
Personal  tie 
complete. 


io  66. 


Anglo-Saxon  Institutions. 


*59 


Territorial 
tie  fast 
arising. 


The  possession  of  land  had  become  a  necessary  qua¬ 
lification  for  nobility  and  freedom.  Territorial  juris¬ 
diction  had  in  many  cases  arisen,  and  the 
manorial  courts  were  very  similar  to  those 
of  the  feudal  system,  while  the  king  had 
become  the  lord  of  the  land  of  the  nation. 

But  Continental  feudalism  had  not  as  yet  arisen. 
Continental  feudalism  has  been  defined  as  a  “complete 
organization  of  society  through  the  medium  of  land- 
tenure,  in  which  from  the  king  to  the  landowner  all  are 
bound  together  by  obligation  of  service  and  defence.’’ 
Government  and  jurisdiction  were  based  upon  this 
system,  and  whilst  the  lord  exercised  jurisdiction  over 
his  tenants  he  was  considered  the  lord  of  the  land  which 
they  held  of  him. 

Hence  the  main  distinction  between  that  system  and 
the  Anglo  Saxon  lay  in  these  points,  (i)  Although  when 
Canute  divided  England  into  four  great 
earldoms  he  introduced  a  system  very  simi¬ 
lar  to  feudal  government,  feudal  govern¬ 
ment  proper  never  existed.  The  official 
magistrates  had  not  become  entirely  here¬ 
ditary.  The  ealdorman  did  not  enjoy  fiscal,  legislative, 
and  judicial  independence  as  the  feudal  nobles  did 
abroad.  The  local  courts  of  the  shire,  hundred,  and 
township  still  existed,  and  the  former  were  supreme 
even  over  manorial  courts  within  the  shire.  Nor  was 
the  central  government  organized  on  feudal  principles, 
nor  the  Witenagemot  in  any  sense  a  feudal  court. 
(2)  Although  the  pcrsotial  tie  was  there,  the  real  one  was 
not ;  that  is,  the  land  had  not  become  the  tie  or  bond 
between  the  king  and  his  people  or  between  lord  and 
thane.  Though  all  were  obliged  to  have  some  lord,  they 
could  choose  their  lord,  and  if  they  held  lands  of  him 


Distinction 

between 

Anglo- 

Saxon  and 

Continental 

feudalism. 


160  The  Normans  in  Europe.  A.  d. 

this  did  not  form  the  tie  between  them,  but  the  personal 
commendation ;  and  many  held  no  land  of  their  lord 
but  possessed  lands  of  their  own.  Lastly,  many  land- 
owners  enjoyed  territorial  jurisdiction,  but  it  extended 
over  men  whose  lands  were  in  no  sense  held  of  them. 

But  if  feudalism  did  not  exist,  it  was  on  the  point  of 
arising,  and  but  for  the  Norman  Conquest  would  pro¬ 
bably  have  been  developed  as  it  was  abroad. 

Such  were  the  institutions  of  the  people  over  whom 
William  had  been  elected  king.  William,  it  must  be 
remembered,  did  not  claim  his  title  to  the 
throne  by  conquest.  The  attitude  assumed 
by  him  was  that  of  the  lawful  claimant  to 
the  throne,  who,  finding  himself  unjustly 
ousted  by  the  perjured  usurper  Harold,  had 
appealed  to  the  judgment  of  God  on  the 
battle-field  of  Hastings,  and  there  asserted 
the  rightfulness  of  his  cause.  It  was  under  this  pretext 
that  he  gained  the  moral  support  of  Europe  and  the 
blessing  of  the  Pope,  and  after  the  battle  he  had  referred 
the  matter  to  the  Witan,  who  had  freely  elected  him  as 
king.  On  this  election  primarily  he  based  his  right.  He 
styled  himself  the  successor  of  Edward  the  Confessor, 
and  the  name  of  Harold  was  omitted,  as  that  of  a 
usurper. 

He  had,  therefore,  neither  the  opportunity  nor  the 
inclination  entirely  to  overthrow  the  nation- 

He  continues  . 

the  Anglo-  ality  of  the  country  or  to  destroy  its  time- 

futions, and'"  honoured  institutions,  but  in  theory  became 

w  thosehem  as  trubr  a  national  king  as  Canute.  It  was 

brought  from  in  this  spirit  that  he  devoted  himself  to  the 
Normandy.  .  ... 

task  which  lay  before  him  of  adapting 
the  institutions  of  his  newly-won  country  to  those  which 
he  brought  from  Normandy,  and  to  the  altered  circurn- 


William’s  po¬ 
licy  towards 
the  Anglo- 
Saxons.  He 
assumes  the 
position  of 
lawful  succes¬ 
sor  of  Edward 
the  Confessor. 


1070-87. 


William' s  Policy. 


161 

stances  of  the  times.  And  it  is  in  this  work  that  the 
political  genius  of  William  and  his  truly  Norman  powers 
of  adaptation  are  forcibly  illustrated. 

From  the  preceding  sketch  the  weakness  and  strength 
of  the  Anglo-Saxon  institutions  will  be  understood.  Their 
strength  lay  clearly  in  their  local  and  social 
aspect;  in  the  development  of  the  lower 
grades  of  constitutional  life  ;  in  the  healthy 
local  self-government  found  in  the  organiza¬ 
tion  of  the  shire,  the  hundred,  the  township,  and  the 
borough;  in  the  popular  character  of  their  justice;  and 
in  their  self-dependence,  their  quiet  and  peace-loving 
character. 

In  all  this  they  were  strong  ;  but  in  the  higher  ranges 
of  constitutional  life  they  failed.  The  connection  be¬ 
tween  the  local  self-governing  communities  and  the 
central  government  was  feeble.  The  administrative 
machinery  by  which  the  king  might  maintain  the,  super¬ 
intendence  and  carry  on  the  central  government  was 
inadequate  and  ill-arranged.  The  relation  between  the 
local  courts  of  justice  and  that  of  the  king,  who  held  a 
general  superintendence  over  them,  and  to  whom  lay  the 
ultimate  appeal,  was  ill-defined. 

This  William  clearly  saw,  and  he  acted  accordingly. 
The  local  courts  were  preserved  intact,  and  the  English 
language  was  allowed  there.  The  number  of  manorial 
courts  was  increased  by  royal  grant,  but  no  other  change 
was  made.  No  difference  was  made  in  the  local  admin¬ 
istration  of  justice  except  that  the  trial  by 
combat  was  added  to  the  compurgation  and 
ordeal  for  the  use  of  Normans.  The  privi-  the  local 

,  jurisdictions. 

leges,  of  towns  were  left  untouched,  and 
those  of  London  confirmed  by  royal  charter. 

The  system  of  mutual  responsibility  was  extended  in 


Weakness 
and  strength 
of  Anglo- 
Saxon  insti¬ 
tutions. 


162 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


the  system  of  frankpledge,  by  which  the  police  arrange¬ 
ments  were  carried  out  by  sections  of  ten  men,  mutually 
responsible  for  each  other. 

The  militia  system  was  continued,  and  the  “  trinoda 
necessitas"  maintained. 

So  far,  William  acted  as  an  English  king  and  perpetu¬ 
ated  national  institutions.  But  in  the  rela¬ 
tions  between  the  central  government  and 
the  king  many  modifications  were  intro¬ 
duced.  The  Witenagemot  was  continued 
indeed,  but  turned  into  a  feudal  court,  the 
“  Commune  Concilium,”  of  the  Norman  kings,  in  which 
the  members  sat  as  feudal  lords.  A  sort  of  committee 
of  this,  the  “Curia  Regis,”  was  established, 
which  besides  its  character  as  a  council  of 
deliberation  and  legislation,  formed  the 
court  of  ultimate  appeal,  in  some  cases  a 
court  of  first  instance,  and  kept  the  local 
courts  in  order.  Of  this  court  the  presiding  officer 
was  the  Justiciary,  an  officer  of  purely  foreign  origin. 
For  the  full  development  of  his  powers  we  must  wait  till 
the  reign  of  Henry  I.,  but  under  William  he  was  gene¬ 
rally  the  regent  of  the  kingdom  in  the  king’s  absence, 
and  probably  soon  began  to  assume  his  later  position  of 
supreme  judicial  and  financial  officer  of  the  realm. 

The  government  of  the  shires  was  entrusted  to  earls, 
the  successors  of  the  old  ealdormen.  But  William 
avoided  the  fault  of  Canute.  He  did  not  carve  out 
England  into  great  earldoms  ;  he  confined  his  earldoms 
to  one  shire,  and  was  careful,  with  a  few 
Appoint-  exceptions  to  be  mentioned  hereafter,  to 

ment  of  r  ... 

earis^vei-  keep  the  earls  in  due  subordination  to  him¬ 
self,  and  to  render  them  more  entirely  an 

official  class. 


Modifica¬ 
tions  in  the 
higher 
ranges  of 
govern¬ 
ment. 


Witena¬ 
gemot  be¬ 
comes  the 
Commune 
Concilium. 
Curia  Regis. 


1070-87. 


William' s  Policy. 


163 


The  sheriffs,  too,  were  made  more  dependent  on  the 
king,  and  became  his  representatives  in  all  fiscal  matters, 
thus  binding  the  local  courts  and  local  organization  to 
the  central  government,  and  preventing  undue  indepen¬ 
dence  from  arising.  These  reforms  did  not, 

11  •  1  •  r  r  ,  Sheriffs 

indeed,  arrive  at  their  perfect  form  till  the  made  more 
reign  of  Henry  I.  and  Henry  II.,  nor  had  onPthede'U 

William,  a  man  of  war,  troubled  as  he  was  klng- 

by  continual  disturbances,  time  fully  to  complete  his 
schemes.  But  he  introduced  the  germ  of  the  future 
Anglo  Norman  government ;  and  by  preserving  what 
was  strongest  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  system,  and  strength¬ 
ening  what  was  weak  by  new  elements,  by  his  stern  will 
he  welded  the  two  into  a  compact  whole,  with  all  the 
elements  of  stability.  And  to  this  day  these  two  ele¬ 
ments  lie  side  by  side,  each  betraying  their  origin  and 
attesting  the  political  wisdom  of  William :  the  local 
organization  emanating  from  the  English  people,  the 
administrative  and  financial  system  centred  round  the 
Norman  king. 

To  the  lowest  classes,  indeed,  the  Norman  Conquest 
was  a  boon.  The  Normans  unaccustomed  to  actual 
slavery,  confused  the  lower  classes  in  the  common  class 
of  "  villeins  ”  or  “  servi.”  The  latter 

Effect  of 

probably  represented  the  Anglo-Saxon  Norman 
“theows”and  the  landless  ‘‘ceorls,”  and  lower115' 0" 
seem  to  have  held  the  position  of  landless  classes- 
labourers.  The  former  were  chiefly  formed  of  those 
“ceorls”  who  before  the  Conquest  had  failed  to  rise  to 
the  rank  of  thanes,  and  had  fallen  into  a  semi-servile 
class.  The  position  of  the  “villeins”  seems  to  have 
been  far  better  now  than  it  became  later.  If  they  might 
not  leave  the  land  without  the  lord’s  consent,  they  were 
at  least  safe  in  the  possession  of  their  homes.  They 


1 64  The  Normans  in  Europe.  A.  D. 

had  to  till  the  soil  of  his  demesne,  but  had  a  remedy 
against  the  violence  of  their  master.  The  servus  and 
villein  alike  might  be  manumitted  by  the  Church,  and 
at  a  later  date,  if  they  could  escape  to  a  town  and  live 
there  as  members  of  a  guild  for  a  year  and  a  day,  they 
were  held  to  have  earned  their  freedom.  But  to  the 
higher  and  middle  classes  it  was  different.  Although 
the  Anglo-Saxons  were  still  allowed  to  enjoy  their  time- 
honoured  institutions  and  customs,  and  the  policy  of 
William  was  conciliatory,  their  condition  was 
not  a  happy  one.  Their  laws  and  language, 
indeed,  were  not  swept  away  by  any  formal 
legislative  enactments,  but  in  the  hands  of 
Norman  officers  the  spirit  of  legal  administration  was 
changed,  the  English  ceased  to  be  the  court  language, 
and  the  country  was,  as  we  shall  see,  gradually  feudal¬ 
ized.  The  Chronicles  do  not  complain  of  suppressed 
nationality,  but  are  full  of  the  legal  and  fiscal  oppression: 
“  The  king  was  so  stark,  and  took  of  his  subjects  many 
marks  of  gold  and  more  of  silver.” 

William,  after  the  first  submission  of  England,  af¬ 
fected,  and  probably  intended,  to  rule  mildly  and  merci¬ 
fully.  But  the  constant  rebellions  which  subsequently 
broke  out  brought  on  the  sternness  and  indifference  to 
suffering  which  stain  his  character.  The  whole  country 
between  Tees  and  Humber  was  reduced  to  a  perfect 
waste,  and  for  nine  years  was  entirely  untilled.  The 
depopulation  which  went  on  is  clearly  seen  from  the 
records  of  Domesday  Book.  Thus  Oxford,  in  the  Con¬ 
fessor’s  time,  had  721  houses;  in  William’s  only  245. 
York  under  the  former  contained  1,607;  under  the 
latter  only  967. 

The  confiscations,  at  first  confined  to  those  who  had 
actually  fought  at  Hastings  rapidly  increased,  and  at 


But  fell 
heavily  on 
the  middle 
and  higher 
classes. 


1070-87.  William  ’  s  Policy.  165 

the  end  of  the  reign  there  were  no  Anglo-Saxon  earls, 
only  one  Anglo-Saxon  bishop,  and  a  few  abbots  and 
great  land-owners  remaining.  The  people  saw  their 
wealth  and  offices  transferred  to  Norman  barons,  and 
groaned  under  their  cruelty  and  oppression.  Their 
country  became  only  a  part,  and  that  not  the  most 
important  part,  of  a  Norman  kingdom,  and  her  interests 
were  continually  sacrificed  to  those  of  Normandy.  Her 
king  was  more  often  abroad  than  in  England,  while  in 
his  absence  the  Normans  ground  down  the  people.  In 
every  way  they  suffered  much,  yet  it  was 
the  happiest  thing  for  England  in  the  end.  Norman 

When  we  remember  the  want  of  combined  ultimately  a 
action  and  political  unity  which  marked  England0  it 
the  preceding  history  of  England,  when  we  strengthened 
remember  the  power  of  the  two  great  fami¬ 
lies  of  Leofric  and  Siward,  and  the  independence  of 
Northumbria  and  the  jealousy  with  which  Edwin  and 
Morkar  looked  upon  the  ascendency  of  Harold,  we  must 
allow  that  had  he  succeeded  quietly  and  transmitted  his 
crown  to  his  successors,  he  would  have  enjoyed  only  a 
partial  supremacy  over  a  large  part  of  the  country.  His 
position  was  not  unlike  that  of  Hugh  Capet,  first  king 
of  France,  and  probably,  as  in  France,  the  earls  would 
long  have  maintained  their  independence.  Continental 
feudalism,  too,  all  the  elements  of  which  we  have  seen 
existed  in  England,  would  probably  have  arisen  with  its 
anarchy,  isolation,  and  class  privileges,  and  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  England  might  soon  have  resembled  that  of 
France.  Far  better  for  her  was  it  that  she  should  be 
conquered  and  reduced  to  submission  and  unity,  even 
by  the  cruel  hands  of  the  Norman  kings.  Far  better 
was  it  that  she  should  suffer  a  temporary  overthrow  of 
her  national  being.  For  thus  she  gained  what  was 


i66 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


wanting  in  her  own  political  condition  ;  the  growth  of 
feudalism  was  checked,  and  after  a  century  or  so  of 
compression  and  pruning  which,  though  severe,  was 
necessary  for  future  growth,  all  that  was  valuable  in  the 
Anglo-Saxon  institutions  reasserted  itself  and  became 
the  primary  basis  of  our  later  constitution.  We  should 
remember,  too,  that  by  the  Conquest  England  was 
brought  into  far  closer  contact  with  the  Continent,  and 
„  .  this,  too,  at  an  important  epoch.  This  was 

her  with  clearly  for  the  good  of  England.  The  Anglo- 
Europe.  Saxon,  as  is  well  illustrated  by  the  character 
of  his  historical  literature,  had  no  European  sympathies, 
hardly  any  English  imperial  ones.  His  interest,  his 
sympathies  were  entirely  local.  He  had  no  sense  of  a 
common  brotherhood  of  men,  a  commonwealth  of 
nations.  He  set  little  value  on  things  removed  from 
his  own  personal  observation,  and  his  ideas  were  thus 
essentially  narrow  and  confined.  By  the  Norman  Con¬ 
quest  all  this  was  changed.  England,  becoming  as  she 
did  part  of  an  Anglo-Norman  kingdom,  was  forced  to 
embrace  wider  sympathies,  began  to  feel  herself  really  a 
member  of  Europe,  and  thus  lost  that  narrowness  and 
exclusiveness  which  so  clearly  marks  her  earlier  history. 

Lastly,  the  Anglo-Saxon  character,  institutions,  and 
social  life  seem  to  have  required  some  new  infusion  of 
blood,  and  this  the  Normans  gave.  The  Anglo-Saxon 
character  seems  to  have  had  all  the  characteristics  of 
stability,  but  not  of  advance ;  of  solidity,  but  not  of 
sprightliness.  It  required  the  Norman  element,  deeply 
influenced  as  it  was  by  the  French  character,  to  give  the 
necessary  life  and  vigour,  and  without  the  Normans,  as 
it  has  been  well  said,  “  England  would  have  been 
mechanical,  not  artistic ;  brave,  not  chivalrous ;  the 
home  of  learning,  not  of  thought.”  In  no  long  time  the 


1070-87. 


William  s  Policy. 


167 


*wo  peoples  began  to  amalgamate,  and  a  healthy,  strong, 
and  vigorous  people  was  the  result,  uniting  the  strength 
of  the  Norman  and  Anglo-Saxon  characters,  which  soon 
began  to  multiply  more  rapidly  than  other  European 
nations,  and  which  now  has  spread  to  every  part  of  the 
inhabited  globe. 

In  spite,  then,  of  the  temporary  misery  which  England 
must  have  undergone,  although  we  naturally  lament 
over  the  fall  of  Harold,  the  king  of  the  Anglo-Saxons,  as 
a  national  loss,  and  over  Hastings  as  a  national  defeat, 
we  can  but  acknowledge  that  the  Norman  Conquest  was 
a  necessary  and  beneficial  experience  in  our  history, 
from  which,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  the  greatest  benefits 
have  flowed. 

The  advantages  which  England  gained  by  the  Norman 
Conquest  will  further  appear  from  a  re-  Policy  of 
view  of  the  policy  of  William  towards  the  William 

XT  ,  !  towards  the 

Norman  nobles.  Norman 

The  Norman  nobles  had  been  induced  to  barons- 
aid  William  in  his  invasion  by  promises  of  wealth  and 
power,  and  these  promises  had  now  to  be  fulfilled.  They 
had  no  reason  to  complain.  The  confiscated  estates  of 
the  conquered  were  largely  conferred  upon  them,  and 
their  manors  were  granted  to  them  with  exemption  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Hundred  Court.  They  practically 
monopolized  all  the  important  offices  of  state.  They 
also  enjoyed  the  position  of  counsellors  of  the  king.  So 
far  William  satisfied  their  claims.  But  they  had  been 
accustomed  to  a  feudal  form  of  government,  with  its 
anarchy  and  independence,  and  many  of  them  longed, 
no  doubt,  to  become  great  feudal  lords  in  England. 

Thus  William  was  brought  face  to  face  with  the  ques¬ 
tion  :  how  far  should  he  introduce  Continental  feudalism 
into  England  ? 


i68 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


In  examining  his  policy  in  this  respect,  it  will  be  well 
to  consider  feudalism  again  under  its  twofold  divisions — 
(ij  a  system  of  land-tenure,  (2)  a  system  of  govern¬ 
ment. 

To  the  feudal  system  of  land-tenure  William  had  been 
long  accustomed,  and  to  it  there  was  no  objection. 
Consequently,  all  the  lands  which  were  confiscated  from 
the  Anglo-Saxons  were  granted  out  to  his  Normans  on 
feudal  terms,  and  became  "  feudal  manors,”  and  the  “  folk- 
land’  was  turned  absolutely  into  crown  property.  The 
,,  .  ,  Anglo-Saxon  landowners  still  held  theirlands 

He  introduces  ° 

the  feudal  sys-  by  their  old  tenure;  but  owing  to  the  re¬ 
tenure  gradu-  peated  revolts,  few  of  these  remained  at  the 
ally’  end  of  William's  reign,  and  those  few,  fol¬ 

lowing  the  now  almost  universal  custom,  either  made 
terms  with  the  king  himself  or  with  some  neighbouring 
lord,  and  consented  to  hold  their  lands  as  feudal  vassals. 

Thus,  by  a  gradual  process,  the  feudal  tenure  of  land 
became  universal  in  England,  and  was  worked  up  into 
a  system  by  the  Norman  lawyers. 

But  with  the  government  of  the  country  the  case  was 
different.  William  had  seen  the  evil  results  of  the  Con¬ 
tinental  system,  the  anarchy,  the  isolation,  the  weakening 
of  the  royal  authority  which  it  produced,  and  was  de¬ 
termined  to  prevent  this  in  England. 
Accordingly,  in  his  grants  to  his  Norman 
nobles  he  refused  to  carve  out  principalities 
for  his  followers.  He  gave  them  manors 
scattered  over  England;  and,  while  allowing  them  the 
right  of  jurisdiction  in  their  manors,  he  strictly  limited 
their  powers,  in  most  cases  by  the  appeal  to  the  Hundred 
court,  in  all  by  direct  appeal  to  himself,  and  kept  them 
in  due  subordination  by  his  royal  processes  or  circuits 
(cf.  p.  240).  The  earls  were  only  set  over  single  shires, 


but  checks 
the  feudal 
indepen¬ 
dence  o! 
his  barons. 


1070-87- 


William' s  Policy. 


169 


and  the  growth  of  independence  thereby  checked.  The 
great  lords  were  allowed  no  independent  rights  of  coin¬ 
ing,  nor  of  making  laws ;  all  these  matters  being 
reserved  to  the  king  himself.  Exceptions 
indeed  were  made.  The  four  Counties  Palatine 

earldoms. 

Palatine  —  Chester,  under  Hugh  Lupus; 

Shrewsbury,  under  Roger  Montgomery  ;  Durham,  and 
Kent,  were  erected,  in  which  the  governors  enjoyed 
rights  very  similar  to  those  of  the  feudal  barons  abroad. 
Of  these  the  earldom  of  Chester  was  the  most  important, 
and  may  be  taken  as  a  type  of  the  rest,  though  it  en¬ 
joyed  greater  rights  than  any  other.  The  Earl  of  Chester 
was  lord  of  all  the  land  in  the  shire  except 
that  in  the  hands  of  the  bishop.  He  had  a 
council  of  the  barons  in  the  Palatinate,  his  own  judicial 
courts,  his  own  staff  of  judges,  constable,  steward,  and 
other  officers.  Offences  were  said  to  be  done  against  his 
peace  and  not  that  of  the  king,  and  all  acts  were  in  his 
name.  In  fact,  he  was  feudal  sovereign  of  Cheshire,  as 
the  King  of  England  was  in  Normandy.  So  entirely  did 
the  Palatine  jurisdictions  stand  apart  from  the  rest  of 
England,  that  those  of  Chester  and  Durham,  the  only 
two  which  survived  the  Conqueror’s  reign,  were  not  re¬ 
presented  in  the  national  Parliament  till  the  reigns  of 
Henry  VIII.  and  Charles  II.  respectively,  while  that  of 
Durham  retained  its  independent  courts  till  1836. 

These  Counties  Palatine  were  so  granted  because  they 
formed  the  outposts  against  danger  from  without : 
Shrewsbury  and  Chester  against  the  Welsh  ;  Durham 
against  the  Scots ;  and  Kent  against  invasion  from  the 
Continent.  Here  great  centralization  and  authority  were 
required  against  surprise.  But  even  here  the  political 
foresight  of  the  Conqueror  did  not  forsake  him,  Two  of 
these,  Durham  and  Kent,  were  granted  to  ecclesiastics, 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


1 70 


whereby  they  were  prevented  from  becoming  hereditary, 
and  that  of  Kent  was  not  revived  after  the  fall  of  Odo  of 
Bayeux. 

Lastly,  in  1086,  taking  advantage  of  a  threatened  in¬ 
vasion  from  Norway,  William  made  every  landowner  in 
England  take  an  oath  of  homage  to  him 
homage,  immediately,  instead  of  demanding  it  only  of 

Io86'  his  “tenants  in  chief,”  who,  in  their  turn 

might  exact  it  from  their  own  tenants.  By  this  act  he 
destroyed  the  essence  of  feudal  government,  which  con¬ 
sisted  in  the  gradation  of  ranks  one  beneath  the  other, 
the  lowest  holding  of  that  immediately  above  and  respon¬ 
sible  to  that  alone  ;  the  “tenants-in-chief,”  or  those  who 
held  of  the  king  himself,  being  alone  responsible  to  him. 

Thus,  while  elsewhere  a  vassal  was  bound  to  follow 
his  immediate  lord  even  when  rebelling  against  the  king, 
and  could  not  be  punished  for  so  doing,  in  England  every¬ 
one  who  took  arms  against  the  king  was  held  guilty  of 
treason. 

In  this  policy  William  was  largely  aided  by  the  insu¬ 
lar  position  of  England,  and  by  the  comparatively  small 
extent  of  the  kingdom.  By  the  former,  the 
aided  in  his  factious  nobles  were  prevented  from  speedi- 
licy  by  insular  ty  gaining  assistance  against  their  king  as 
England  °f  they  ahroad.  By  the  latter,  centraliza¬ 
tion  of  government  was  rendered  easy,  and 
the  centrifugal  tendencies  of  the  times  checked. 

Thus,  in  the  government  of  England,  the  balance  of 
power  lay  clearly  on  the  side  of  the  king  ;  while  in  France 
this  was  destroyed  in  favour  of  the  baronage.  But  the 
French  view  was  taken  by  the  Norman  barons;  and 
after  William  had  crushed  out  the  local  resistance  of  the 
Saxons,  he  had  to  meet  with  the  rebellions  of  his  feudal 
vassals  in  Normandy  and  England. 


1070-87. 


William' s  Policy. 


171 


The  results  of  the  policy  of  William  are  among  the 
most  important  facts  of  early  English  history,  and  we 
may  fairly  say  that  it  is  to  William  in  no  little  Results  of 
degree  that  we  are  indebted  for  our  later  William's 
constitutional  government.  Not  that  he  in 
any  way  anticipated,  or  could  have  anticipated  it,  nor 
that,  had  he  done  so,  he  would  have  welcomed  the  pros¬ 
pect,  but  he  was  in  this  matter  what  most  men  are  after 
all,  the  servants  of  a  Master  they  cannot  resist.  It  would 
seem  that  every  nation  in  the  course  of  its  development 
must  pass  through  a  stage,  a  period  of  absolutism,  more 
or  less  declared.  Such  a  schooling  is  necessary  to  break 
down  the  independence  and  privileges  of  the  nobility,  to 
fuse  races  and  classes  together,  and  to  give  them  com¬ 
mon  interests  and  common  sympathies  for  which  they  in 
turn  may  struggle  against  the  sovereign’s  will.  This 
schooling  England  underwent  under  the  stern  rule  of  her 
Anglo  Norman  kings;  while  France,  sacrificed  as  she 
was  to  the  anarchy  of  feudalism,  put  off  her  schooling 
till  late,  when  it  became  doubly  oppressive,  in  fact,  a 
tyranny. 

Again,  society  must  first  develop  a  strong,  healthy, 
legal  system  before  she  can  advance  to  anything  like 
real  and  practical  freedom.  Without  such  a  system  to 
rally  round,  liberty  becomes  anarchy,  equality  a  contra¬ 
diction  in  terms,  since  equality  before  the  law  is  the  only 
one  that  can  exist,  and  without  law  equality  is  sacrificed 
to  the  might  of  the  strongest.  This,  again,  the  strong 
rule  of  the  Anglo-Norman  kings  gave  to  England, 
whereas  in  France  it  did  not  grow  up  till  late,  then  only 
to  add  still  further  links  to  the  chain  of  absolute  and 
irresponsible  despotism. 

Let  us,  keeping  these  two  points  in  view,  try  and  trace 
the  different  results  of  feudalism  in  England  and  France. 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


172 


In  France  the  independence  of  the  feudato- 
dalism  in  ries  from  the  crown  was  practically  all  but 
France.6  and  complete.  The  nation  resembled  in  fact 
rather  a  confederacy  of  independent  princes 
than  a  united  nation  under  one  king.  These  feudal  prin¬ 
ces  enjoyed  all  or  nearly  all  royal  rights,  and,  proud  of 
their  independence,  atfected  to  despise  their  weak  over- 
lord  at  Paris.  Trusting  to  their  own  great  power,  they 
refused  to  unite,  except  in  a  fitful  way,  with  one  another, 
and  caring  nothing  for  the  classes  below  them,  divided 
their  lands  among  a  host  of  inferior  barons  who  might 
assist  them  against  their  king,  and  who  joined  with  them 
in  grinding  down  the  lower  classes.  Hence  arose  isola¬ 
tion  in  every  form.  Isolation  of  one  part  of  France  from 
the  other,  which  checked  the  growth  of  national  unity. 
Isolation  amongst  the  nobles,  which  eventually  contri¬ 
buted  to  their  fall.  Isolation  between  classes,  military 
and  non-military,  which  prevented  any  union.  Law,  too, 
never  for  years  attained  to  the  position  of  any  real  sys¬ 
tem.  One  half  of  France  was  called  “  le  pays  du  droit 
coutumier,’’  clearly  showing  the  absence  of  any  definite 
system,  and  in  the  rest  of  France,  “  le  pays  du  droit 
ecrit,’’  the  law  was  continually  being  evaded,  altered,  and 
destroyed  by  the  anarchy  which  existed.  Hence  in 
France  we  see  an  utter  absence  of  cohesion,  an  utter 
want  of  community  of  interests  between  all  classes  and 
all  parts  of  the  country.  On  this  and  out  of  this  rose 
the  power  of  the  crown.  Itself  the  only  organized  power, 
it  slowly  but  surely  broke  in  upon  the  anarchy.  The  in¬ 
dependent  feudatories,  prevented  by  their  jealousy  from 
uniting  against  the  common  foe,  were  either  subdued  or 
absorbed  in  detail.  .The  people,  seeking  in  the  growth 
of  the  kingly  power  a  defence  from  their  hated  over- 
lords,  joined  the  king,  and  while  they  contributed  mate- 


1070-87. 


William' s  Policy. 


1 73 


rially  to  the  consolidation  of  his  power,  omitted,  in  their 
hot  haste,  to  secure  themselves  against  future  extrava¬ 
gances  of  prerogative.  When  then  under  Louis  XIV. 
the  crown  had  absorbed  all  the  independent  principali¬ 
ties,  and  the  political  influence  of  the  nobles  was  gone, 
nothing  remained  to  stay  its  despotism  except  the  social 
privileges  of  the  nobles,  which  rendered  them  hated 
while  they  were  not  feared,  and  led  to  their  eventual 
overthrow. 

From  this  England  was  saved  by  the  wise  policy  of 
William.  The  nobles,  deprived  of  their  independence 
at  the  time  of  the  Conquest,  struggled  hard  against  their 
masters,  rebelled  continually,  though  without  success, 
under  William  I.,  Rufus,  and  Henry  I,  who  were  thus 
forced  in  some  measure  to  unite  with  the  nation  against 
them.  Overthrowing  the  central  authority,  they  tri¬ 
umphed  for  a  short  time  under  Stephen,  but,  absolutely 
defeated  under  Henry  II.,  were  obliged  to  change  their 
tactics.  They  now  sought  alliance  with  the  classes 
below  them,  made  common  cause  with  them,  and  at 
their  head  marched  forth,  under  John  and  Henry  III., 
to  wrest  constitutional  and  national  privileges  from  an 
overgrown  prerogative,  and  to  lay  the  basis  of  a  free 
and  limited  government  in  which  the  interests  of  the 
whole  nation  were  considered.  Hence  in  England  no 
great  gulf  existed  between  classes,  between  the  military 
or  noble  and  the  non-military  or  ignoble.  There  was  no 
difference  in  the  eyes  of  the  law  between  noble  and 
commoner.  A  few  privileges  the  nobles  had,  but  none 
in  any  way  onerous  to  the  rest  of  the  community,  such 
as  exemption  from  taxes,  as  in  France.  They  had  to 
seek  for  this  power  by  showing  themselves  worthy 
leaders  of  a  great  constitutional  cause,  by  becoming  the 
leading  statesmen  of  the  day,  and  winning  the  respect 

N 


174 


Tiie  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


if  not  always  the  love  of  the  classes  below  them,  who  for 
a  long  time  looked  to  them  as  their  natural  leaders 
against  the  king.  While  thus  England  was  ruled  by  an 
aristocracy,  it  was  an  aristocracy  which  claimed  no  irk¬ 
some  privileges,  and  which  in  some  measure  repre¬ 
sented  the  interests  of  the  nation. 

Again,  of  all  aristocracies  ours  is  the  least  exclusive 
and  the  most  democratic.  It  is  constantly  receiving 
new  members  from  the  commonalty,  whilst  its  younger 
branches  are  continually  sinking  into  the  ranks  of  the 
commonalty.  Abroad  all  the  sons  of  a  noble  belong  to 
the  nobility ;  in  England  only  the  eldest  son  succeeds 
to  the  political  privileges  of  his  father,  and  the  rest,  with 
some  slight  social  privileges,  are  counted  as  members  of 
the  commons.  Thus  the  nobility  and  commonalty  are 
welded  together,  and  there  is  no  broad  line  of  division 
between  the  two,  as  is  the  case  abroad. 

The  whole  nation,  presenting  a  common  resistance 
to  arbitrary  power,  gradually  encroached  upon  the  irre¬ 
sponsible  prerogative  of  its  kings,  and  vindicated  for 
itself  national  privileges ;  and  England  having  early 
passed  her  schooling  days,  started  forth  into  vigorous 
manhood,  receiving  one  valuable  legacy  at  least  from 
the  hand  of  her  stern  schoolmaster,  a  thoroughly  or¬ 
ganized  and  fully  developed  system  of  law,  which  might 
form  the  principle  round  which  to  rally  and  save  her 
from  the  ills  of  anarchy  and  disunion. 

This  is  the  course  of  English  history,  and  many  of  its 
peculiarities  may  be  derived  from  the  fact  that  feudalism 
was  introduced  in  so  modified  a  form  by  William  the 
Conqueror.  To  sum  up  what  has  been  said.  In  France 
the  crown  began  in  weakness  and  ended  in  despotism. 
In  England  it  began  in  strength  and  ended  in  a  limited 
monarchy. 


1070-87. 


William' s  Policy. 


1 75 


The  importance  of  ecclesiastical  history  in  early  times 
is  very  great.  The  ecclesiastics  were  not  only  the  spiri¬ 
tual  teachers  of  the  people,  the  moral,  social,  ^ 
and  educational  organizers  of  society  ;  they  ofecdesu* 
were  the  statesmen,  the  lawyers,  the  diplo-  wryfn early 
matists,  the  writers,  architects,  even  some-  times- 
times  the  warriors  of  the  times.  The  Church  was  the  real 
avenue  to  power  and  influence  in  every  department  of 
intellectual  life,  the  only  avenue  for  poor  but  able  men. 
Elsewhere  the  path  was  hedged  up  by  the  privileges  of 
an  aristocracy ;  here  they  found  scope  for  their  genius 
and  ambition,  and  rose  with  rapid  strides  by  mere  force 
of  mind  to  the  highest  positions  of  the  state.  When  to 
this  is  added  the  influence  of  the  monasteries,  which  has 
already  been  mentioned,  it  will  be  clear  that  there  was 
absolutely  no  department  of  active  life  which  the  Church 
did  not  interpenetrate  and  in  which  churchmen  did  not 
take  the  lead.  The  Church  was  an  “  all-pervading  and 
animating  energy,  quickening  the  whole  social  and 
political  system,  and  formed  the  intellectual  starting- 
point  of  the  age. 

It  was  therefore  most  necessary  that  William  should 
turn  his  attention  to  the  improvement  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  Church.  Much  moreover  was  needed. 

At  the  time  of  the  Norman  Conquest,  the 
Anglo-Saxon  Church,  after  having  contri¬ 
buted  not  a  little  to  the  growth  of  national  unity,  and 
given  its  aid  in  the  local  organization  of 
the  country,  had  fallen  somewhat  behind 
the  standard  of  the  time.  The  discipline, 
the  morals,  and  the  intelligence  of  the  secu¬ 
lar  clergy  had  been  relaxed  ;  most  of  them  were  mar¬ 
ried,  contrary  to  the  opinions  of  those  days,  and  there 
was  even  danger  of  their  becoming  a  close  hereditary 


William  and 
the  Church. 


Degraded 
condition  of 
the  Church 
at  accession 
of  William. 


1 76 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


reform  the 
Church. 


caste,  holding  their  possessions  as  so  much  family  pro¬ 
perty  descending  from  father  to  son,  and  thereby  for¬ 
getting  the  trust  character  of  the  Church’s  revenues.  It 
had  been  mainly  with  the  view  of  reforming  the  English 
Church  and  drawing  it  closer  to  Rome  that  the  Pope  had 
sanctioned  the  expedition  of  William.  The 
Wiiham  question  was,  how  far  would  William  com- 

pledged  to 

ply? 

To  understand  clearly  the  meaning  of 
William’s  reforms  in  this  respect,  it  is  necessary  to  say  a 
few  words  on  the  great  ecclesiastical  system 
Gregory  VII  Gregory  VII.,  who  at  this  time  sat  on  the 
papal  throne. 

Feudalism,  the  first  definite  scheme  after  the  fall  of 
the  empire  of  Charlemagne  for  organizing  political 
society,  had  hopelessly  failed.  The  only  possible  means 
by  which  it  could  have  succeeded  was  by  maintaining 
intact  the  mutual  duties  of  over-lord,  under-lord,  vassal, 


and  villein.  These,  once  destroyed,  feudalism  became 
„  ,  a  mere  excuse  for  perpetual  quarrels  between 

Failure  of  11  |  . 

feudalism  the  barons  and  for  intolerable  oppressions  of 
cfpie^of n"  the  despised  non-military  classes.  All  co- 
orgamzation.  hesjon  in  the  European  state-system  was 
destroyed,  and  society  and  government,  except  under 
the  temporary  rule  of  some  great  man,  were  little  more 
than  legalized  anarchy. 

Europe,  cursed  by  this  system,  “was 
losing  all  knowledge  of  its  own  unity,  all 
strength,  and  rapidly  drifting  into  meaning¬ 
less,  pitiless  antagonism  of  nations,  classes, 
and  individuals.”  It  was  from  the  clergy, 
or  rather  from  the  monasteries,  that  the 
opposition  to  this  state  of  things  arose. 
From  the  monasteries  the  impulse  was  communicated 


The  Church 
and  monas¬ 
teries  take 
up  the 
problem. 
The  impulse 
is  extended 
to  the 

bishops  and 
popes. 


1070-87.  William' s  Ecclesiastical  Policy. 


7  7  7 


to  the  bishops,  and  from  the  bishops  to  the  popes,  who 
take  up  the  work  and  try  to  give  it  principle  and  organi¬ 
zation. 

During  the  ninth  century  the  papacy  had  fallen  a 
victim  to  the  evils  abroad,  and  sank  in  degradation  and 
contempt.  Raised  in  the  tenth  century  from  this  degra¬ 
dation  by  Otho  I.  and  his  successors  she  rapidly  regained 
lost  ground  under  the  “German  popes,”  and  rose  daily 
to  higher  aspirations,  to  culminate  in  the 

accession  of  Gregory  VII.  This  man,  under  9l1gory 
,  VII.,  1073. 

his  name  of  Hildebrand,  had  long  held  an 

important  position  in  Europe  Son  of  a  Tuscan  carpenter, 
he  had  early  embraced  monasticism,  and  as  a  monk  of 
Clugny,  in  Burgundy,  had  subjected  himself  to  the  dis¬ 
cipline  of  the  Benedictine  rule.  Returning  to  Rome,  he 
became  the  great  pope-maker  of  his  day,  contributed  to 
the  election  of  five  of  his  predecessors,  and  directed  the 
papal  policy.  On  the  death  of  Alexander  II.  (1073),  the 
papal  tiara,  to  which  he  had  never  aspired,  was  laid  at 
his  feet,  and,  abandoning  the  seclusion  of  monastic  life, 
he  ascended  the  papal  throne,  prepared  to  subdue  the 
world  in  the  same  spirit  in  which  he  had  hitherto  striven 
to  conquer  himself.  Under  Gregory  VII.  the  schemes 
which  had  steadily  been  growing  were  perfected,  and 
monasticism  in  his  election  rose  to  her  highest  fortune. 

Gregory  VII.,  seeing  the  conflicting  principles  at  work 
in  Europe,  the  chaotic  confusion,  the  triumph  of  cruelty 
and  disorder,  conceived  the  magnificent  idea 
of  a  great  spiritual  autocracy  which  should  c 

serve  as  a  principle  of  unity  round  which  Europe  might 
gather,  and  a  force  which  should  join  together  rival 
classes  and  interests.  The  Pope  was  to  be  the  supreme 
head  of  Christendom,  and  ultimate  arbiter  of  her  affairs. 
To  him  should  all  appeals  be  made  on  international 


178 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.D. 


questions,  on  questions  of  peace  and  war ;  while  within 
the  states  his  authority  should  watch  over  the  inferior 
courts  and  see  justice  done.  Elsewhere  violence  and 
fraud  might  run  riot,  but  here,  at  Rome  at  least,  all 
questions  should  be  decided  on  the  highest  grounds  of 
equity  and  morality.  Other  tribunals  might  be  open 
only  to  the  rich  and  powerful ;  here  all  should  gain  a 
hearing.  Elsewhere  wickedness  in  high  places  might 
escape  punishment,  but  here  morality  should  be  en¬ 
forced  on  kings  as  well  as  on  subjects,  and  the  proudest 
criminal  reduced  to  submission.  Thus  might  the  “  truce 
of  God”  in  time  extend  all  over  Europe,  and  wars  be 
made  to  cease.  Thus  might  the  weak  find  aid  against 
the  strong,  and  right  maintain  itself  against  might ; 
while  Europe,  united  in  the  confession  of  one  faith, 
might  here  see  reflected  the  image  of  its  unity  and  its 
majesty. 

This  magnificent  ideal,  it  has  been  well  said,”  was 
crossed  by  human  frailty  even  in  Gregory’s  days.  Sub¬ 
sequently  it  was  fatally  degraded  and  discredited  by  the 
selfish  and  faithless  temporizing,  the  shameless  greedi¬ 
ness  which  grew  into  proverbs,  wherever  the  name  of 
Rome  was  mentioned  It  was  maintained  by  shameful 
means  and  shameless  forgeries  which  escaped  detec¬ 
tion  from  the  uncritical  eye  of  Europe  at  that  time. 
The  power  grew  to  be  abused,  to  usurp  the  powers  to 
which  it  was  to  have  served  as  a  counterpoise.  It  went 
through  the  usual  course  of  successful  power  in  human 
hands,  and  in  every  succeeding  century  these  things 
grew  worse.  The  ideal  became  more  and  more  a 
shadow,  the  reality  a  more  corrupt  and  intolerable 
mockery.  But  it  still  remains  the  most  magnificent 
failure  in  human  history.” 

Such  was  the  ideal  conceived,  and  partly  realized,  by 


1070-87.  William' s  Ecclesiastical  Policy. 


179 


Details  of 
Gregory's 
scheme. 


Homage 
claimed  of 
the  kings. 
Celibacy  of 
clergy 
enforced. 


Gregory  VII.  Let  us  consider  what  was 
necessary  to  its  realization.  First,  the  sove¬ 
reigns  of  Europe  must  be  induced,  if  possi¬ 
ble,  to  do  homage  to  the  Pope,  for  naturally  the  scheme 
took  the  feudal  shape  which  then  predomi¬ 
nated,  and  without  such  subordination  the 
scheme  could  not  work.  Then  the  celibacy 
of  the  clergy  must  be  enforced,  whereby 
they  might  become  a  separate  order  freed 
from  secular  interests  and  connected  closely  with  the 
Pope. 

The  ecclesiastical  courts  in  each  separate  state  must 
be  made  independent  of  the  secular,  and  secured  in  their 
jurisdiction  over  all  clerks,  and  in  all  causes 
affecting  morality  and  religion.  Lay  investi¬ 
ture  (investing  the  bishop  with  the  ring  and 
the  crozier)  must  be  condemned,  lest  the 
clergy  should  become  dependent  upon  the 
secular  arm,  and  simony  and  servility  enervate  them. 
Thus  the  clergy,  bound  to  the  Pope  by  the  ties  of 
interest  and  devotion,  would  be  a  ready  instrument  in 
his  hand  for  carrying  out  his  schemes. 

These  were  the  principles  of  Gregory’s  plan,  which  he 
was  vigorously  pressing  upon  Europe,  and  which  he 
now  hoped  to  see  carried  out  in  England. 

William  was  not  unwilling  in  most  respects  to  satisfy 
his  wishes.  His  policy  may  for  clearness  be 
classed  under  two  heads:  (1)  The  relation 
of  the  Church  to  the  State  ;  (2)  The  relation 
of  Church  and  State  to  Rome. 

(1)  In  Anglo-Saxon  times  the  Church  and  State  had 
been  closely  connected.  The  bishops  had  sat  side  by 
side  with  the  secular  officers  in  the  shire  court.  The 
Witenagemot  had  been  as  much  an  ecclesiastical  as  a 


Independence 
of  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  courts. 
Lay  investi¬ 
ture  con¬ 
demned. 


William’s 

policy. 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


180 


Relation  of 
State  to 
Church. 


Makes  the 
Church  a  ba¬ 
lance  to  the 
barons,  re¬ 
forms  it  and 
increases  its 
power. 


secular  assembly  ;  its  laws,  indeed,  had  been 
rather  ecclesiastical  canons  than  secular 
laws.  This  William  altered.  Fully  aware  of 
the  importance  of  the  Church  as  a  depart¬ 
ment  of  State,  as  a  principle  of  order,  he 
conceived  the  idea  of  using  it  as  a  counter¬ 
balance  to  the  feudal  barons,  ever  ready  to 
overthrow  the  central  authority  of  the  crown, 
and  establish  their  own  selfish  independ¬ 
ence.  Hence  his  first  care  was  to  reform  the  Church  and 
increase  its  power. 

Stigand,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  convicted  of 
illegally  holding  the  See  of  Winchester  with  his  own 
Stigand  archbishopric,  and  of  having  received  the 

deposed.  pallium,  the  symbol  of  his  metropolitan 

made  arch-  power,  from  the  false  pope,  Benedict  X., 
bishop.  was  removed,  an(j  most  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 

bishops  shared  his  fate.  In  their  place  William  sought 
Europe  over  for  worthy  substitutes.  Lanfranc,  called  from 
Normandy,  where  he  had  been  made  abbot  of  William’s 
monastery  of  St.  Stephen  at  Caen,  was  appointed  arch- 
„  ,  bishop,  and  under  him  the  reform  was 

Supremacy  of  4 

Canterbury  continued.  The  supremacy  of  Canterbury 
Celibacy  over  York  was  asserted.  Marriage  of  the 
encouraged.  clergy  was  discouraged ;  the  already  married 
clergy  were  tolerated,  but  future  marriages  were  strictly 
prohibited.  In  the  chapters  monks  were  substituted  for 
canons.  The  monasteries  were  reformed 
according  to  the  stricter  rules  of  the  Norman 
monasteries  to  which  Lanfranc  had  been 
accustomed 

Having  thus  reformed  the  worst  abuses  of  the  Church, 
William  proceeded  to  increase  its  power.  Two  of  the 
bishops,  Durham  and  Kent,  were  entrusted  with  Coun- 


the  secular 


Monasteries 

reformed. 


1070-87.  William' s  Ecclesiastical  Policy. 


181 


Power  of 

bishops 

increased. 


ties  Palatine.  Many  of  the  village  bish¬ 
ops  were  removed  into  fortified  towns  that 
they  might  be  better  able  to  resist  the  feudal 
nobles.  The  see  of  Lichfield  was  removed  to  Chester, 
Sherborne  to  Salisbury,  Selsey  to  Chichester,  Dorchester 
in  Oxfordshire  to  Lincoln.  The  leading  clergy  were 
called  to  William’s  councils,  and  frequently  were  ap¬ 
pointed  to  the  office  of  justiciary  (p.  234)  and  others, 
while  the  chancellor  was  invariably  an  ecclesiastic. 

Lastly,  William  removed  the  bishop  from  the  county 
court,  and  erected  ecclesiastical  courts  in  £  ( 
each  diocese.  In  these  the  bishop  alone  cal  courts 
presided  over  all  cases  which  affected  the  estab|i;>hed. 
spiritual  or  Church  interests. 

(2)  So  far  William  fell  in  with  Gregory’s  scheme,  and 
reorganized  the  English  Church.  But  this  was  not  all 
that  Gregory  claimed.  He  demanded  the 
homage  of  the  king.  This  William  would 
not  grant.  Friendly  relations  with  Rome  he 
was  anxious  to  maintain,  and  the  tax  of  Pe¬ 
ter’s  Pence  he  would  gladly  pay;  he  would 
even  acknowledge  the  general  supremacy  of  the  Pope. 
But  the  oath  of  homage  he  would  not  take,  “for  neither,” 
said  he,  “  had  he  ever  promised  so  to  do,  nor  had  his 
predecessors  done  so,”  and  Gregory,  anxious  to  secure  his 
friendship,  dared  not  press  the  question  of  Investiture. 

The  general  character  of  his  policy  is  summed  up  in 
the  so-called  Customs.  By  these  he  ordered  that  the 
king's  leave  must  be  obtained  before  any  Pope  were  ac¬ 
knowledged  in  England,  before  any  papal  synod  were 
held,  anv  letter  of  the  Pope’s  received,  be-  „ 

r  The  Cus- 

fore  any  bishop  appealed  to  Rome,  or  any  toms  of 

tenant  in  capite  (those  who  held  their  lands 

immediately  of  the  king)  were  excommunicated. 


Relation  of 
State  and 
Church  to 
Rome.  Wil¬ 
liam  refuses 
homage. 


William. 


182 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Thus  William  clearly  showed  himself  de- 
da'ims"^  rule  termined  to  rule  the  Church  of  England, 
Churchtl0nal  an<^  aga*nst  great  scheme  of  Gregory  VII. 

asserted  a  contrary  one,  that  of  a  National 
Church,  owing,  indeed,  a  nominal  allegiance  to  Rome, 
closely  assimilated  to  her  in  doctrine,  ritual  and  organi¬ 
zation,  but  still  absolutely  under  the  power  of  the  crown. 

In  all  this  William  was  heartily  supported  by  the  vigor¬ 
ous  common-sense  of  Lanfranc,  and  Gregory  had  his 
hands  too  full  in  pressing  his  claims  on  the  Emperor, 
Henry  IV.,  to  quarrel  with  William  on  the  subject. 

Thus,  during  William’s  time,  the  system  was  firmly 
established,  and  no  quarrel  arose  till  the  reigns  of  his 
successors. 

The  policy  of  William,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted,  was 
on  the  whole  beneficial.  The  abuses  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
Church  were  removed.  Norman  bishops 
were  certainly  better  educated,  and  it  was 
well  that  the  Church  should  be  brought  into 
closer  connection  with  Rome,  which,  with  all 
its  faults,  was  the  real  source  of  vigour  at  that  date.  Un¬ 
der  their  influence  the  activity  of  the  Church  revived, 
while  her  discipline  was  improved. 

In  the  increased  power  of  the  Church  a  valuable  bal¬ 
ance  was  found  to  that  of  the  feudal  baronage,  while  the 
Church  itself  was  kept  in  check  by  the  unqualified  autho¬ 
rity  of  the  king. 

except  in  jn  aq  qiese  Ways  William’s  changes  were 

two  cases.  J  ° 

for  the  good,  but  in  two  ways  they  did  harm. 

(i)  The  right  of  royal  patronage,  though  fairly  ad¬ 
ministered  by  William,  was  under  his  imme- 
Lay  patron-  (bate  successor  shamefully  abused ;  and 

age  often  J 

abused.  (2)  in  William’s  ordinance  erecting  the 

mens  of  ec-  spiritual  courts  lay  the  foundation  of  many 


Beneficial 
character  of 
William's 
policy  ; 


i  o  70-8  7 .  William' s  Ecclesiastical  Policy.  1 83 

a  serious  quarrel  in  after  times.  His  error  ciesiastical 
,  .  .  .  .  .  courts, 

here  is  to  be  found,  not  so  much  in  erecting 

the  courts,  as  in  not  more  clearly  defining  the  limits  of  their 
jurisdiction.  During  his  own  reign  this  caused  no  diffi¬ 
culty,  but  very  soon  the  ecclesiastical  courts  began  to 
encroach  upon  the  temporal.  In  these  encroachments 
the  churchmen  were  not  indeed  actuated  entirely  by  sel¬ 
fish  motives,  or  by  narrow  professional  motives.  Owing 
to  the  more  perfect  system  of  procedure  established  in 
their  courts,  they  became  exceedingly  popular  and 
people  flocked  of  their  own  accord  to  the  bishop’s  court. 
But  the  result  was  most  pernicious.  The  jurisdiction  of 
the  ecclesiastical  courts  grew  apace,  and  infringed  on 
that  of  the  temporal.  The  clergy’s  privilege  of  being 
tried  by  these  courts  alone  threatened  to  render  them 
absolutely  independent  of  the  secular  arm,  and  finally, 
under  Henry  II.  the  abuses  were  so  flagrant  that  Henry 
interfered,  and  fought  his  fatal  quarrel  with  Becket  on 
this  very  point. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

END  OF  REIGN  OF  WILLIAM  I. 

We  must  now  return  to  the  year  1071,  the  date  of  the 
final  conquest  of  the  country.  William  was  not  fated  to 
enjoy  a  lengthened  peace,  and  no  sooner  were  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  revolts  crushed  than  troubles  arose  from  different 
quarters. 

The  conquest  of  Maine  had  been  accomplished  just 
before  William’s  invasion  of  England ;  but  his  rule  was 
most  distasteful  to  the  people  of  that  province,  and  they 


184 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Quarrels 

aoout 

Maine. 

lo73‘ 


now  took  the  opportunity  of  his  absence  to 
abandon  their  allegiance.  They  first  ap¬ 
pealed  to  one  of  the  daughters  of  their  last 
Count,  Herbert,  who  came  north  with  her 


husband,  Azzo,  Marquis  of  Este,  and  occupied  the  coun¬ 
try.  This,  however,  did  not  satisfy  the 
townsmen  of  Le  Mans,  the  capital.  They 
had  long  suffered  from  the  arbitrary  rule  of 
their  petty  feudal  lords,  and  were  anxious  to 
establish  their  liberties  on  some  more  secure 
basis.  Accordingly  they  formed  themselves 
into  a  municipality  or  commune,  bound 
themselves  to  maintain  their  new-born  freedom,  and 


The  town  of 
Le  Mans 
rebels,  and, 
forming  a 
municipa¬ 
lity,  appeals 
to  Fulk  IV. 
(Rechin)  of 
Anjou. 


again  fell  back  upon  their  old  overlord  the  Count  of 
Anjou,  who  thus  once  more  ruled  in  Maine. 

The  news  at  once  brought  William  across  the  Chan¬ 
nel.  Fulk  was  tardy  in  his  assistance,  and  the  rebels,  to 
escape  the  wasting  of  their  lands,  surren¬ 
dered  the  town,  and  acknowledged  Robert, 
William's  eldest  son,  as  their  Count.  Still, 
William  dared  not  crush  out  the  spirit  of 
municipal  freedom.  He  promised  to  ob¬ 
serve  their  privileges,  and  Le  Mans,  losing 
her  independence,  retained  her  civic  rights, 
to  become  one  of  the  earliest  privileged  communes  of 
Northern  France. 


William 
invades 
Maine. 
Robert  is  ac¬ 
knowledged 
Count,  but 
respects  the 
privileges  of 
Le  Mans. 


At  the  treaty  of  Blanchelande  which  followed  between 


Treaty  of 
Blanche¬ 
lande.  Ro¬ 
bert  holds 
Maine  of 
Anjou. 
Rebellion  of 
the  feudal 
barons  in 
England. 
1075-1076. 


Fulk  and  William,  Robert  consented  to  hold 
the  county  as  a  fief  of  Anjou. 

From  this  petty  quarrel  on  the  Continent 
William  was  recalled  by  an  outbreak  of  his 
feudal  barons  at  home.  Their  rebellion 
opens  a  new  phase  of  English  history.  It 
was  the  first  of  those  attempts  on  the  part 


io75-7(5-  End  of  Reign  of  William  /. 


185 


Roger  de  Bre- 
teuil,  Earl  of 
Hereford. 
Ralph  Gua- 
der,  Earl  of 
Norfolk. 


of  the  feudal  nobles  to  throw  off  the  stern  rule  of  their 
new-found  kings  which  troubled  England  till  the  reign 
of  Henry  II. 

The  actual  companions  of  William  in  his  invasion  had 
submitted  to  him ;  but  they  were  now  fast  dying  out, 
and  it  is  their  sons  who  now  rebel  against  the  stern  rule 
of  the  Conqueror.  The  Earldom  of  Hereford 
was  now  in  the  hands  of  Roger  de  Breteuil, 
the  son  of  William’s  trusted  adviser  and 
justiciary  William  Fitz-Osbern  ;  that  of  Nor¬ 
folk  was  in  the  hands  of  Ralph  Guader. 

These  two  earls,  in  common  with  many  of  the  Norman 
nobles,  had  long  chafed  under  the  strict  rule  of  William, 
and  longed  to  establish  their  feudal  independence  in 
England. 

William,  moreover,  had  forbidden  a  marriage  between 
Ralph  and  Roger’s  sister,  probably  because  he  feared 
the  result  of  such  an  alliance.  This  filled  up  the  mea¬ 
sure  of  their  discontent.  In  spite  of  William’s  refusal, 
they  solemnized  the  marriage.  At  the  bridal  feast  they 
entered  into  a  conspiracy,  and  gained  the 
assistance  ofWaltheof  Earl  of  Northampton, 
the  only  remaining  Anglo-Saxon  earl,  who  had  been 
treated  kindly  by  William,  and  given  the  king’s  niece  Ju¬ 
dith  in  marriage.  Their  intentions  are  clearly 
seen  from  the  agreement  made  between  [he  rebels 


Waltheof. 


them.  England  was  to  be  restored  to  the  con¬ 
dition  it  was  in  during  King  Edward’s  reign.  One  of  the 
three  conspirators  should  be  king,  the  other  two  earls,  who 
of  course  would  enjoy  practical  independence.  The  at¬ 
tempt,  however,  entirely  failed.  The  Anglo-Saxons 
knew  their  interests  too  well  to  join  the  rebel¬ 
lion,  and  it  was  speedily  supressed.  Ralph  lion  crushed, 
fled  to  Brittany,  and  Roger  was  taken  pri- 


i86 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


soner  to  end  his  days  in  captivity.  The  fate  of  Wal- 
theof  was  more  tragic.  It  does  not  appear  that  he  gave 
more  than  a  tacit  acquiescence  to  the  conspiracy.  In¬ 
deed,  when  the  rebellion  broke  out  he  betrayed  the  plot 
to  Lanfranc,  and  was  for  the  moment  pardoned.  But 
soon  after  the  accusation  was  again  revived,  and  he  was 
put  to  death,  some  said  at  the  instigation  of  his  unnatural 
wife.  This,  the  only  political  execution  of  William’s 
reign,  has  been  bitterly  laid  to  his  account.  It  was  cruel, 
it  was  perhaps  hardly  just ;  but  no  doubt  William  was 
prompted  to  the  act  by  political  motives.  It  was  an  act 
of  policy  to  destroy  the  last  chief  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
race,  the  last  leader  to  whom  they  could  look.  But 
Waltheof  was  looked  upon  as  a  national  saint  by  the 
conquered  people,  and  the  later  troubles  of  William’s 
reign  were  by  them  considered  as  the  vengeance  of  God 
upon  the  king’s  tyranny. 

For  here  the  prosperity  of  William’s  reign  ceased. 
Hitherto  he  had  been  successful  in  all  his  wars  and  in 
every  scheme  he  undertook.  From  this  date 
of  WiMam’s  failures  began  to  thicken  around  him,  while 

later  years.  his  character  darkened  as  life  drew  to  a 

close.  His  temper  waxed  harsher,  his  yoke  lay  heavier 
on  his  subjects,  his  craving  for  money  grew,  and  England 
suffered  greatly. 

Next  year  followed  the  revolt  of  his  son  Robert,  which 
again  assumed  the  character  of  a  rebellion  of  the  feudal 
nobles.  Before  invading  England  William 
Robert.  had  promised  to  resign  Normandy  to  his 

1077-1080.  eldest  son  in  the  event  of  his  success,  This 
he  probably  did  to  allay  the  jealousy  of  Philip  of  France ; 
but  it  was  only  a  nominal  promise,  and  when  Robert 
claimed  its  fulfilment,  William  curtly  answered  that  “he 
did  not  intend  to  throw  off  his  clothes  till  he  went  to  bed.’’ 


1080-1085.  End  of  Reign  of  William  I. 


1S7 


Philip  joins 
Robert. 


Robert  of 
Belesme. 
William  de 
Bn  teuil. 


Battle  of  Ger- 
beroi,  1080. 
Father  and 
son  recon¬ 
ciled. 


On  this,  Robert  rose  in  arms,  and  was  aided 
by  Philip  of  France,  and  many  of  the  young 
nobility,  who  seized  the  opportunity  once 
more  to  establish  their  independence.  Robert  of  Belesme, 
son  of  Roger  Montgomery  of  Shrewsbury, 
and  William  of  Breteuil,  son  of  William  Fitz- 
Osbern,  and  brother  of  the  old  conspirator 
Roger,  were  two  most  important  men,  both 
sons  of  William’s  most  trusted  advisers.  In 
the  action  which  ensued  at  Gerberoi,  William 
unhorsed  and  wounded  by  his  son,  was  forced 
to  seek  a  reconciliation,  to  which,  Robert, 
who  was  struck  with  horror  at  his  own  deed,  consented. 

William’s  half-brother  Odo  next  disturbed 
the  realm.  To  this  man,  Bishop  of  Bayeux,  had  been 
given  the  County  Palatine  of  Kent.  But 
even  this  did  not  satisfy  his  ambitious  spirit.  Jbout  Odo 
He  aimed  at  becoming  Pope,  and  prepared  °ofcayeux' 
an  army  in  England  to  enforce  his  claim. 

His  turbulent  and  cruel  conduct  had  long  caused  trouble 
to  William,  and  now  he  was  arrested.  This 
arrest  might  have  been  considered  an  en-  rested1  as 
croachment  on  the  privileges  of  ecclesiastics, 
who  claimed  to  be  tried  in  their  own  courts 
granted  them  by  William  himself.  William,  therefore, 
declared  him  arrested  not  as  bishop  but  as  earl,  and  did 
not  release  him  till  he  himself  was  on  his  death-bed. 

In  1085  William  was  threatened  by  danger  from  an¬ 
other  quarter.  The  Kings  of  Norway  and  Denmark 
had  looked  with  jealousy  upon  the  success  Io8s 
of  the  Norman  William.  Olaf  of  Norway  Threatened 
might  still  have  remembered  the  compact  from  Norway 
between  Tostig  and  Harald  Hardrada,  while  and  Denmrirk' 
Canute,  who  then  ruled  in  Denmark,  though  allied  by 


Earl  of 
Kent. 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


1 88 


marriage  with  William  through  his  wife,  the  daughter  of 
Robert  le  Frison,  Count  of  Flanders,  had  already  made 
settlements  in  England.  Canute  now  prepared  for  a  last 
attempt,  and,  gaining  the  aid  of  Olaf  and  of  the  Count 
of  Flanders,  threatened  William  with  a  formidable  coali¬ 
tion.  William,  to  meet  the  danger,  hastily  levied  foreign 
mercenaries,  and,  to  secure  the  fidelity  of  his  subjects, 
exacted  the  famous  oath  of  homage  from  all  his  subjects 
at  the  Council  of  Sarum.  Fortunately,  how¬ 
ever,  the  expedition  was  checked  by  con¬ 
trary  winds.  Olaf  was  bribed  by  William, 
and  in  the  following  year  Canute  fell  a  vic¬ 
tim  to  a  rebellion  of  his  own  subjects,  caused  by  discon¬ 
tent  at  his  hasty  innovations.  From  this  time  the  Danes 
lost  the  command  of  the  sea.  The  reforms  inaugurated 
by  Canute  brought  their  institutions  into  conformity  with 
the  rest  of  Europe,  and  Denmark  troubled  her  no  more. 

The  Danish  invasion  probably  hastened  the  comple¬ 
tion  of  the  Domesday  Survey,  one  of  the  most  import¬ 
ant  acts  of  William’s  reign.  This  great  work 

The  Domes-  .  °  r ,  .  . 

day  Survey,  completes  the  organization  of  William,  (i) 
It  was  intended  to  serve  as  the  basis  of  tax¬ 
ation  ;  (2)  as  the  authority  by  which  all  disputes  con¬ 
cerning  land  might  be  settled  ;  (3)  and  as  a  muster  roll 
of  the  nation.  As  a  census  it  is  not  exhaustive  ;  the  three 
northern  counties  and  part  of  Westmorland,  Lancashire, 
and  Monmouthshire,  probably  on  account  of  their  dis¬ 
turbed  state,  are  not  mentioned,  nor  are  London  and 
Winchester  and  a  few  other  towns,  probably  because  of 
charters  of  immunity  previously  granted.  But  as  far  as 
it  goes  it  is  very  exact  and  correct.  From  its  pages  the 
Conqueror  could  at  a  glance  discover  the  state  of  his 
revenues,  the  wealth,  the  consequence  of  every  person¬ 
age  in  his  kingdom.  No  nation  in  Europe  possesses  such 


William  ex¬ 
acts  an  oath 
of  homage 
from  all  his 
subjects. 


1087.  End  of  Reign  of  William  /.  189 

a  monument  of  its  early  state,  nor  can  later  times  point 
to  many  achievements  like  it.  The  means  , , 

.  ,  ,,  ,  Way  in  which 

by  which  the  information  was  to  be  collected  information 

were  these.  Commissioners  went  forth  into  "Js  Lollccted- 
every  shire,  and  there,  calling  the  sheriffs,  the  parish 
priests,  the  reeves  of  the  townships,  and  men  of  each 
manor  before  them,  required  them  on  their  oath  to  an¬ 
swer  these  questions:  “What  is  the  name  of  your 
township  ?  Who  was  lord  thereof,  bishop  or  abbot  in 
the  days  of  Good  King  Edward  ?  How  many  thanes, 
how  many  freemen,  how  many  villeins  are  there  ? 
How  many  acres,  and  what  their  value  in  king  Edward’s 
time  ?  What  their  value  now  ?  What  has  each  freeman  ? 
How  many  oxen”  how  many  cows,  how  many  sheep, 
how  many  swine  ?  The  information  thus  collected  was 
then  put  into  shape,  and  called  the  Domes¬ 
day  Book,  and  with  such  activity  was  the  Consequent 
.  .  discontent, 

work  carried  on  that  it  was  completed 

within  a  year.  Loud  were  the  complaints  throughout 
the  land,  and  in  some  places  riots  ensued.  The  people 
considered  it  an  arbitrary  invasion  of  their  rights.  It  is 
a  shame,  they  said,  that  the  king  should  pry  into  each 
man’s  means,  a  shame  even  to  tell  of  such  tyranny, 
though  the  king  thought  no  shame  to  do  it.  Such  is 
always  the  cry  of  the  opponents  of  order,  and  the  inde¬ 
pendence  of  the  English  resented,  as  they  have  ever 
done,  the  interference  of  government.  But  their  com¬ 
plaints  were  ill-founded.  It  was  no  tyranny,  but  the 
work  of  a  great  organization,  the  essential  preliminary 
and  accompaniment  of  strong  government.  On  its  com¬ 
pletion  a  great  assembly  was  held  in  Salisbury  Plain, 
when  the  ordinance  before  mentioned  was  passed, 
ordering  every  freeman  to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance 
directly  to  the  king  himself. 


190 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.D. 


Quarrel 
with  Philip 
of  France 
about  the 
Vexin, 

1087. 


In  the  following  year  a  quarrel  broke  out  with  Philip 
for  the  possession  of  the  Vexin.  This  had 
been  granted  by  Henry  I.  to  William’s 
father  in  return  for  the  aid  given  by  th« 
Norman  duke  to  Henry  when  fighting  foi 
his  crown.  But  Philip  now  invaded  it. 
William,  irritated  by  a  coarse  jest  of  the  French  king, 
ravaged  the  country  and  burnt  the  town  of  Mantes. 

As  he  proudly  rode  over  the  ruins  of  the 
of  town,  his  horse  stumbled  on  some  hot  ashes, 
and  the  rider  thrown  violently  on  the 
pommel,  sustained  a  fatal  injury.  Carried  to  Rouen,  he 
lingered  long  enough  to  declare  his  wishes.  Robert  was 
given  Normandy  and  the  lands  which  Wil- 
His  last  liam  had  gained  by  inheritance.  William 

Rufus,  his  second  son,  he  named  as  suc¬ 
cessor  to  those  lands  which  he  had  gained  himself,  while 
to  Henry,  his  third  son,  he  left  a  present  of  5,000  pounds 
of  silver,  with  the  prophetic  promise  that  he,  becoming 
greater  than  either  of  his  brothers,  would  one  day 
possess  far  greater  and  ampler  power.  Then  turning  to 
his  confessor,  he  deplored  the  evils  of  his  past  life.  “  No 
tongue  can  tell,”  said  he,  “  the  deeds  of  wickedness  I 
have  perpetrated  in  my  weary  pilgrimage  of  toil  and 
care."  He  deplored  his  birth:  born  to  warfare,  polluted 
with  bloodshed  from  his  earliest  years,  his  trials,  the  base 
ingratitude  he  had  met  with.  He  also  extolled  his 
own  virtues,  praised  his  conscientious  appointments  in 
the  Church  and  his  alms,  and  then,  freeing  all  the  state 
captives  with  a  prophecy  of  the  ills  that  Odo  by  his 
ambition  would  bring  upon  his  country,  passed  away  at 
the  hour  of  prime.  Thus  the  great  Conqueror  was  at 
last  at  rest. 

The  scene  of  his  death  was  a  sad  satire  on  the  powei 


1087. 


End  of  Reign  of  William  I. 


191 


of  man.  His  sons,  eager  only  to  gain  their  appointed 
shares,  departed  before  their  father’s  eyes  ^ 
were  closed — Rufus  to  England,  Robert  to  offered  to 
Normandy,  Henry  to  seize  the  treasure ;  the  body' 
and  the  corpse  of  the  strong  man  who  but  a  few  minutes 
before  struck  fear  into  all  who  angered  him,  was  now 
shamefully  despoiled  and  stripped,  and  hurried,  almost 
without  decent  burial,  into  its  unkingly  grave,  the  owner 
of  the  soil  demanding  his  price  before  he  allowed  the 
body  to  be  buried. 

A  great  man  thus  passed  away — a  man  who  did  great 
things  for  England.  In  William  the  Norman  character 
found  its  greatest  representative.  To  the  consummate 
powers  of  a  general  he  added  the  subtle  skill  of  a  diplo¬ 
matist  and  the  foresight  of  a  statesman.  Born  a  bastard,  and 
left  fatherless  at  an  early  age,  he  triumphed 
over  all  his  foes  in  Normandy,  and  strongly  wliHam’s' 
organized  his  dukedom.  Then  passing  from  character 
Normandy  to  England,  he  changed  the  name 
of  Bastard  for  that  of  Conqueror,  and  in  welding  the 
Saxon  and  Norman  institutions  together  he  illustrated 
the  Norman  talent  for  adaptation  by  his  wise  and  thought¬ 
ful  policy.  He  reorganized  our  whole  political  life,  saved 
England  from  the  ills  which  were  eating  at  its  core,  gave 
it  unity  and  strength,  and  first  made  it  a  great  power  in 
Europe.  Yet  these  great  qualities  of  his  were  stained  by 
great  blemishes.  William  was  an  irresponsible  despot, 
and  his  people  found  him  so.  To  the  Anglo  Saxons,  al¬ 
though  he  continued  the  old  national  and  constitutional 
forms,  and  left  to  the  people  the  enjoyment  of  their  own 
law,  he  was  stark  and  stern.  The  form  of  their  govern¬ 
ment  remained,  but  the  spirit  was  changed,  and  many 
are  the  complaints  on  account  of  the  fiscal  and  other 
oppressions.  His  rule  was  that  of  a  wise  and  wary,  a 


192 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


strong  and  resolute,  an  arbitrary  though  not  a  wanton 
despot.  He  marked  out  his  goal,  and  no  scruples  of 
conscience  or  mercy  stayed  him  from  attaining  it.  There 
was  nothing  which  he  would  not  do  to  gain  his  end,  and 
much  was  the  suffering  he  thereby  brought  on  both  An¬ 
glo-Saxon  and  Norman.  He  was  a  man  born  to  be 
feared,  not  to  be  loved,  and  when  life  had  departed,  and 
the  great  Conqueror’s  hand  lay  cold,  the  indignities 
which  mean  wretches  heaped  upon  the  lifeless  corpse 
bore  witness  to  the  fact  that  fear  once  gone,  hatred  arose 
and  drove  out  even  the  sentiment  of  respect. 


CHAPTER  XV. 


WILLIAM  RUFUS. 


In  the  separation  of  England  from  Normandy,  accord- 
,  ing  to  the  will  of  the  Conqueror,  we  have  a 

Accession  of  0  . 

William  clue  to  the  reign  of  William  Rufus  and  many 

Rufus,  1087. 

a  succeeding  reign. 

The  English  welcomed  that  act  as  a  restoration  of  their 


nationality,  and  a  pledge  that  England  should  no  longer 
,  be  a  mere  province  of  the  Norman  kingdom. 

Popular  0 

among  the  Headed,  therefore,  by  Lanfranc,  who  had 
imbibed  thoroughly  English  sympathies,  and 
Wulfstan,  Bishop  of  Worcester,  the  only  national  bishop 
who  remained,  they  heartily  supported  the  claims  of 
William  Rufus,  and  welcomed  his  coronation  at  Win- 


,  ,  Chester  with  delight.  The  Norman  baron- 

Disliked  by  0 

the  Norman  age,  on  the  contrary,  resented  the  separa¬ 
tion  of  the  two  kingdoms,  whereby  their 
conquered  possessions  in  England  were  separated  from 
their  hereditary  property  in  Normandy,  and  their  hopes 


William  Rufus. 


1091. 


*93 


of  establishing  their  feudal  independence  were  marred. 

Led  by  Odo  of  Bayeux  and  the  Count  of 

Mortain,  both  half-brothers  of  the  Conque-  They  sup- 

1  port  the 

ror,  Roger  of  Montgomery,  and  his  son  claim  of 
Robert  of  Belesme,  Eustace  of  Boulogne, 
and  Roger  Bigod,  they  disputed  the  will  of  the  Conque¬ 
ror,  and  supported  the  claim  of  Robert. 

Rufus  was  thus  forced  to  appeal  to  the  English.  He 
issued  a  proclamation,  in  which  he  promised  to  refrain 
from  arbitrary  taxations,  to  give  up  all  newly  introduced 
abuses,  and  to  let  everyone  sport  on  his  own  , 

Rufus  appeals 

domain.  Then  summoning  all  the  English  to  the  Eng- 
to  join  him,  on  pain  of  being  proclaimed  llsh' 
nithing  or  worthless,  he  collected  an  army  to  which  Lon¬ 
don  and  the  Cinque  Ports  largely  contributed.  He  re¬ 
duced  the  castle  of  Rochester,  which  Odo  m  ,  „ 

.  The  rebellion 

had  seized,  bought  off  Roger  Montgomery  is  suppressed, 
of  Shrewsbury,  and  drove  the  rebels  from  u’9°' 
the  country. 

He  then  leagued  himself  with  the  discontented  nobles 
of  Normandy  and  invaded  that  duchy,  until 
he  was  bought  off  by  Robert,  who  consented 
to  a  treaty  by  which  the  survivor  was  to  suc¬ 
ceed  to  the  other's  dominions  if  either  died 
without  heirs. 

Rufus  was  thus  established  on  the  English  throne  en¬ 
tirely  through  the  assistance  of  the  English.  They  were 
ill  requited  by  the  oppressive  tyrant.  As  long  as  Lan- 
franc  lived  he  was  restrained  by  his  influence  ;  but  when 
Lanfranc  died  his  true  character  began  to 
show  itself.  With  much  of  the  ability,  deci¬ 
sion,  and  good  generalship  of  his  father,  he 
presented  in  other  respects  a  complete  con¬ 
trast  to  him.  William  I.,  in  spite  of  his 


Rufus 
invades 
Normandy. 
Treaty  of 
Caen,  1091. 


On  death  ol 
Lanfranc, 
1089,  Wil¬ 
liam's  true 
character 
appears. 


i94 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Rise  of 
Ranulf 
Flambard. 

father. 


many  faults,  had  been  at  heart  a  religious  and  austere 
man.  He  had  hated  anarchy  as  dangerous  to  his  realm, 
and  licentiousness  as  the  outward  garb  of  anarchy.  His 
son  was  utterly  wanting  in  all  religious  principle,  and 
shocked  the  morals  even  of  that  age  by  his  boisterous 
and  indecent  profligacy.  His  abilities  were  prostituted 
to  his  selfish  love  of  power,  and  instead  of  trying  to  pre¬ 
vent  anarchy  in  his  kingdom,  he  turned  it  to  his  own 
account.  Wanting  in  the  business-like  qualities  of  his 
father,  he  entrusted  all  state  matters  to  his 
minister,  Ranulf  Flambard,  who  resembled 
the  son  much  as  Lanfranc  resembled  the 
If  Lanfranc  was  the  best  of  the  statesmen 
ecclesiastics,  Ranulf  Flambard  was  the  worst.  Born  of 
a  low  Norman  family,  which  had  settled  in  the  New 
Forest  under  Edward  the  Confessor,  he  became  one  of 
the  clerks  of  the  Chancery,  rapidly  rose  to  favour,  and 
became  Bishop  of  Durham  and  chief  minister.  Now 
was  seen  the  result  of  the  great  authority  assumed  by 
William  over  the  Church,  and  how  by  a  wicked  king 
that  power  might  be  abused  ;  and  England  experienced 
all  the  ills  to  avoid  which  the  papal  idea 
had  been  formed.  Ranulf  Flambard  was 
one  of  those  churchmen  who  had  become 
entirely  secularized  by  the  drudgery  of  the  Chancery 
business,  and,  now  in  power,  he  proceeded  to  let  those  se¬ 
cular  ideas  have  full  play.  Without  education,  but  with 
great  natural  powers  and  boundless  fluency  of  tongue, 
coarse,  impudent,  and  cunning,  he  was  just  the  servant 
for  the  infamous  Rufus.  Abetted  by  the  king,  he  ground 
down  the  people  by  fiscal  oppression,  and  then  delibe¬ 
rately  set  to  work  not  only  to  plunder  but  to 
degrade  and  injure  the  Church.  He  intro¬ 
duced  a  system  of  barefaced  and  daring 


His  charac¬ 
ter. 


Attempts  to 
secularize 
the  Church. 


io93- 


William  Rufus. 


*95 


venality,  which  put  up  everything  in  Church  and  State 
for  sale,  and  threatened  to  secularize  the  Church  itself. 
He  started  the  theory  that  the  vacant  benefices  belonged 
to  the  king,  following  the  analogy  of  the  temporal  fiefs. 
For  years  after  Lanfranc's  death  the  See  of 
Canterbury  was  kept  vacant,  and  its  reve-  terbury  kept 

nues  were  dissipated  in  contributing  to  the  vacam- 

dissolute  tastes  of  the  king,  who  declared  that  no  one 
should  be  archbishop  but  himself.  In  this  policy  the 
Red  king  was  influenced  by  two  motives — first,  to  free 
himself  from  the  irksome  restraint  which  an  archbishop 
would  be  sure  to  place  upon  his  gross  and  reckless  profli¬ 
gacy;  and  secondly,  because  he  knew  that  so  long  as  the 
primacy  was  vacant,  little  opposition  would  be  offered  to 
him,  and  he  would  find  it  easy  to  wreak  his  will  upon 
the  rest  of  the  possessions  of  the  Church.  So  steadily 
was  this  perverse  policy  maintained,  that  at  the  end  of 
his  reign  not  only  was  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  an 
exile,  but  four  bishoprics  and  eleven  abbeys  were  with¬ 
out  pastors.  In  the  struggle,  the  bishops, 
jealous  of  the  supremacy  of  Canterbury,  th^bishops 
showed  singular  apathy.  Thus,  in  spite  of 
the  discontent  of  his  people  and  the  frequent  petitions  to 
him,  one  of  which  is  peculiar,  “  that  the  king  would 
allow  it  to  be  enjoined  that  the  people  should  pray  that 
the  king's  heart  might  be  changed,”  he  continued  obsti¬ 
nate  until  a  dangerous  illness  brought  on  a 
temporary  fit  of  remorse  as  violent  as  is  Anselm 
usual  in  ill-balanced  minds.  Then,  at  last,  archbishop, 
giving  way  to  a  long-expressed  desire  of  1093 
his  country,  he  appointed  Anselm  Archbishop  of  Can¬ 
terbury. 

This  great  man  was  a  Lombard,  like  Lanfranc,  and  of 
noble  birth.  He  had  been  attracted  to  Bee  by  the  fame 


196 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


of  Lanfranc,  and  there,  in  spite  of  their  very 

His  character  different  characters,  had  become  one  of  his 
contrasted  * 

with  that  of  dearest  friends.  To  his  predecessor  he 

Lanfranc.  ,  ,  ,  ,  . 

formed  a  complete  contrast.  Lanfranc  was 
a  man  of  the  world,  gifted  with  a  practical,  vigorous 
turn  of  mind.  Anselm,  on  the  contrary,  deficient  in  the 
worldly  qualities,  far  surpassed  his  friend  in  originality 
of  thought  and  subtlety  of  mind.  He  was  the  first  great 
philosopher  of  Christian  Europe,  and  in  his  works  at 
once  laid  the  basis  of  the  future  scholastic  philosophy, 
and  went  beyond  it.  Eager  for  the  discovery  of  exact 
truth,  he  plunged  fearlessly  into  the  great  questions  of 
the  proof  of  the  existence  of  God,  the  relation  of  faith  to 
reason,  the  meaning  of  the  Incarnation — subjects  which 
after  him  were  scarcely  touched  till  the  fifteenth  and 
sixteenth  centuries.  His  biographer  and  friend,  Eadmer, 
tells  us  of  the  astonishment  caused  by  his  attempts  to 
unravel  "these  the  darkest  of  the  questions  concerning 
the  Divine  Nature  and  our  faith,  which  lay  hid  or  covered 
by  much  obscurity  in  the  Divine  Scriptures.’’  To  this 
speculative  turn  of  mind  Anselm  added  a  childlike  sim¬ 
plicity,  a  tenderness  never  surpassed.  He  loved  to 
teach  the  young  and  to  mould  their  minds  when  “they 
were  still  like  wax,  ready  to  take  the  impression  marked 
upon  them.”  “  He  loved  to  tend  the  sick,  and  he 
behaved,”  says  his  chronicler,  "so  that  all  men 
loved  him  as  their  dear  father.  He  so  touched  the 
hearts  of  the  English  that  there  was  no  count  or  countess 
or  powerful  person  but  thought  they  had  lost  much  in 
the  sight  of  God  if  it  had  not  chanced  to  them  to  have 
done  some  service  to  him.  So  it  was,  he  was  to  those 
in  health  a  father,  to  the  sick  a  mother.”  Even  the 
stern  Conqueror  William  loved  him  better  than  any 
man,  and  wished  to  see  him  before  anyone  else  when 


1093- 


William  Rufus. 


197 


he  lay  on  his  death-bed.  Yet  with  all  this  tenderness  he 
was  austere  ;  inexorably  severe  to  his  own  faults  and  to 
those  of  others,  and,  once  convinced  that  any  course 
was  wrong,  no  power  on  earth  could  make  him  acqui¬ 
esce  in  it. 

After  Lanfranc  had  been  removed  to  St.  Stephen’s  at 
Caen,  Anselm  had  become  abbot  of  Bee,  and  now  he 
was  called  to  succeed  him  in  the  See  of  Canterbury. 
This  he  accepted  very  much  against  his 

1  \  0  His  unwil- 

will,  and  only  from  the  highest  sense  of  duty,  lingness  to  ac- 

upon  William  making  three  promises:  (1)  promises  of 
To  acknowledge  Urban  II.  pope;  (2)  To  the  kins- 
restore  all  property  belonging  to  the  See  of  Canterbury  ; 
(3)  To  act  on  the  advice  and  counsel  of  the  archbishop. 

The  ills  which  might  ensue  from  the  subservience  of 
the  Church  to  the  king  had  clearly  appeared  during  the 
past  few  years,  and  must  have  furnished  _ 

r  J  Evils  of  the 

proof  to  Anselm  of  the  dangers  of  the  system.  suberdina- 

England  thereby  was  in  danger  of  again  Church  'to 
being  cut  off  from  Rome,  and  of  having  its  the  State- 
Church  reduced  to  the  condition  of  a  mere  slave  to  the 
king,  who  could  despoil  it  of  its  revenues  at  will.  It 
would  have  thus  lost  all  independence,  have  become 
degraded,  and,  losing  all  moral  consistency  of  purpose, 
would  have  ceased  to  struggle  against  immorality  and 
wickedness,  or  to  influence  the  country  for  good.  But 
Anselm  scarcely  needed  such  argument.  For,  as  if  by 
poetic  justice,  ‘Rufus  could  not  have  ap¬ 
pointed  a  more  resolute  antagonist.  Lanfranc  Anselm  is  a 

r  0  supporter 

was  the  representative  of  the  independence  of  the  papal 
of  the  national  church.  Anselm  was  the  llu-ur> 
supporter  of  the  papal  authority  in  its  extremest  pre¬ 
tensions.  Deficient  in  the  strong  practical  common- 
sense  which  characterized  his  predecessor,  he  was  by 


198 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


his  contemplative,  imaginative  character  better  fitted  to 
find  rest  in  a  great  ideal,  to  which  his  philosophical 
spirit  would  give  an  existence  and  a  reality  which  it  did 
not,  in  fact,  possess.  Lanfranc  was  a  thorough  man  of 
the  world,  and  saw  the  dangers  of  the  papal  scheme, 
and  how  it  failed  in  the  working.  Anselm  was  in  no 
sort  a  man  of  the  world,  but  a  speculative  recluse,  a  man 
of  bocks  and  thought,  and  was  carried  away  by  the 
magnificence  of  the  scheme  which  promised  to  complete 
the  gradation  of  the  hierarchy  and  give  completeness 
and  sanctity  to  the  whole  feudal  society.  The  whole 
world  might  be  considered  as  holding  of  one  another, 
and  all  eventually  of  the  Pope,  who  himself,  as  his 
vicegerent,  held  of  Christ.  Thus  all  the  world  might  be 
considered  the  vassals  and  servants  of  Christ,  in  theory 
as  well  as  in  fact.  Was  not  this  worth  struggling  for? 
Such  were  the  thoughts  of  the  man  whom  William  Rufus 
had  placed  in  the  archiepiscopal  chair. 

The  result  might  have  been  easily  foreseen.  The 
archbishop  at  once  claimed  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises 
made  when  he  accepted  the  primacy.  He 
Quarrel  reproved  the  vices  of  the  royal  court,  where 

between  the  r  * 

king  and  the  king,  with  his  renewed  health,  had  re¬ 
taken  to  his  old  courses,  and  where  the 
licentious  ways  of  the  courtiers,  their  effeminate  dress, 
long  hair,  and  peaked  shoes,  did  violence  to 
Anselm’s  pious  character.  He  attacked  the 
king  for  keeping  benefices  vacant,  and  re¬ 
fusing  to  restore  the  property  alienated  from 
the  See  of  Canterbury.  William,  on  his 
part,  demanded  a  gift  from  his  See.  This 
Anselm,  not  improperly,  refused,  because  a 
simoniacal  interpretation  might  be  put  upon 
the  transaction,  and  it  would  inevitably  lead 
to  simony. 


Anselm  de¬ 
mands  the 
fulfilment  of 
the  king's 
promises, 
and  attacks 
the  vices  of 
the  court. 
William  de¬ 
mands  a  relief 
from  his  See. 
Anselm  re¬ 
fuses. 


1097- 


William  Rufus. 


199 


The  question  of  investiture  next  came  forward.  The 
grant  of  the  “pallium,”  or  ecclesiastical  vestment  sym¬ 
bolical  of  metropolitan  authority,  had  been  claimed  by 
the  Popes  since  the  sixth  century,  and  An¬ 
selm  now  asked  leave  to  go  to  Rome  to  Question  of 

0  investiture. 

obtain  it.  William  refused  with  anger,  de¬ 
claring  that  he  had  not  yet  even  accepted  Urban  II., 
who  was  struggling  against  an  anti-pope,  and  he  claimed 
the  right  of  acknowledging  the  Pope  or  no  as  he  pleased. 
He  even  thought  of  deposing  Anselm,  and  in  this  was 
supported  by  the  bishops,  who  showed  strange  servility. 
But  the  common-sense  of  the  barons  checked  him,  and 
the  matter  was  settled  by  a  compromise. 

Urban,  struggling  as  he  was  with  the  em-  The  question 

00  Q  _  compromised. 

peror,  Henry  IV.,  on  the  same  question, 
dared  not  press  his  claims  on  England,  and  when 
William  acknowledged  him,  allowed  the  pallium  to  be 
laid  on  the  altar  rails,  whence  Anselm  took  it  and 
invested  himself.  But  there  could  be  no  truce  between 
archbishop  and  king;  and  finally,  when 
Rufus  accused  Anselm  of  sending  his  con¬ 
tingent  improperly  armed  to  the  Welsh 
war  then  going  on,  Anselm  demanded  leave  to  go 
to  Rome  to  consult  the  Pope.  William  seized  the 
opportunity  of  freeing  himself  from  his  archbishop.  He 
bade  him  go,  but  never  more  return  ;  and  for  the  rest 
of  the  king’s  life  the  See  of  Canterbury  was  kept  practi¬ 
cally  vacant,  and  the  revenues  were  appro¬ 
priated  by  the  king.  Thus  began  that  sys¬ 
tem  of  appeals  to  Rome,  which  became  so 
fruitful  of  future  ills.  Yet  in  all  this  Anselm 
was  so  clearly  fighting  for  what  was  right, 
that  our  sympathies  are  entirely  with  him,  and  we  are 
only  too  glad  to  forgive  any  slight  temper  or  want  of 


Final 

quarrel. 


Anselm 
appeals  to 
Rome  and 
leaves  the 
country. 
1097. 


200 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


tact  and  courtesy  which  at  times  appear  in  him.  He  was 
not,  indeed,  fitted  to  battle  with  the  world,  with  the  over¬ 
bearing  insolence  and  noisy  tyranny  of  a  wanton  despot 
like  William  Rufus.  Eadmer,  his  loving  chronicler, 
most  pathetically  illustrates  this  :  “We  were  accustomed 
to  lead  him  away  from  the  assembly  a  little  when  he  was 
tired,  and  restore  him  with  a  passage  of  Scripture  or  a 
theological  question.  We  asked  him  why  he,  such  a 
vigorous  man,  became  on  such  occasions  so  weak  and 
faint-hearted.  He  replied  that  in  this  respect  he  was 
altogether  a  child.  He  likened  himself  to  an  owl  who 
is  only  well  when  it  is  with  its  young  ones  in  its  hole, 
but  if  it  comes  out  among  the  crows  and  ravens  sees 
nothing  but  pecking  beaks  and  knows  not  which  w'ay  to 
turn.’’  Nor  again  are  we  inclined  to  be  scrupulous 
even  on  questions  where  principle  was  at  stake,  such  as 
the  question  of  the  pallium,  which  affected  the  principle 
of  the  royal  supremacy ;  or,  again,  Anselm’s  demand  to 
go  to  Rome  for  advice,  whereby  he  had  broken,  so  his 
cruel  oppressor  asserted,  William  the  Conqueror’s  “  cus¬ 
toms.”  The  question  of  principle  we  postpone  to  Henry 
I.’s  reign,  w'hen  it  comes  forward  more  prominently. 
During  the  quarrel  with  Rufus  it  is  overborne  by  other 
questions.  William  Rufus  was  a  violent,  unscrupulous, 
and  rapacious  tyrant,  the  very  man  against  whom  the 
Pope  had  raised  his  scheme ;  and  Anselm,  after  having 
most  unwillingly  accepted  the  archiepiscopal  office,  reso¬ 
lutely  stood  up  for  the  good  and  right  and  just.  Indeed, 
wre  go  as  far  as  to  say  that  had  all  kings  been  like  Rufus, 
all  archbishops  like  Anselm,  the  papal  authority  could 
not  have  been  pressed  too  strongly,  or  the  ecclesiastical 
censures  wielded  too  severely.  The  existence  of  such 
kings,  of  such  brutality,  selfishness,  and  misrule,  justifies 
the  extremestof  the  papal  claims.  And,  lastly  it  is  import- 


1091-1093- 


William  Rufus. 


201 


ant  to  remember  that  in  this  opposition  of  the  Church  to 
the  irresponsible  despotism  of  the  Norman  kings,  the 
people  first  learnt  their  right  and  duty  to  resist  an  en¬ 
croaching  royal  power,  a  lesson  which  they  had  else 
easily  forgotten. 

During  the  quarrel  with  Anselm  the  following  events 
had  happened. 

Malcolm  Canmore,  brought  up  in  the  court  of  Edward 
the  Confessor,  had  overthrown  the  usurper  Macbeth  in 

1054,  through  the  aid  of  Siward  of  North- 

1  •  nr'i  •  t— •  1  •  1  ii-  -l  The  Scotch 

umbria.  This  English  alliance  was  subse-  war. 

quently  strengthened  by  his  marriage  with  *°9lmZ°93- 

Margaret,  sister  of  Edgar  the  /Etheling. 

Accordingly,  during  William’s  reign,  Malcolm  had 
supported  the  national  revolts  against  the  Conqueror, 
but  had  been  defeated  and  forced  to  swear  allegiance  to 
William.  He  still,  however,  continued  his  English 
policy,  and  his  court  formed  the  chief  refuge  for  the 
English  when  flying  from  Norman  tyranny.  Thus  the 
English  language  and  institutions  spread  to  Scotland, 
and  the  latter  became  the  basis  of  the  Scotch  constitu¬ 
tion.  Feudalism  was  established.  The  Lothians,  Angli¬ 
cized  by  the  recoil  of  the  Norman  invasion,  were 
thoroughly  civilized,  and  under  Malcolm  began  to  form 
the  nucleus  of  the  future  Scottish  kingdom.  The  dis¬ 
cipline  and  ceremonial  of  the  English  Church  were 
introduced,  to  improve  the  condition  of  the  Keltic 
Church,  which  had  become  disorganized.  English 
clergy  were  sent  by  Lanfranc,  and  monasteries  after 
the  Norman  model  were  established. 

In  1091  hostilities  broke  out  once  more  between  the 
two  countries.  The  quarrel  was  at  first  compromised 
by  Malcolm  doing  homage  to  William,  but  two  years 
afterwards  Malcolm  complained  of  William’s  conduct 


202 


The  Nonnans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


in  fortifying  Carlisle  and  settling  English 
Malcolm  peasants  from  the  south  there.  This  he  as- 

land.  serted  to  be  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  the 

Scotch  king,  who  claimed  Cumberland  as  im¬ 
mediate  lord.  On  William's  refusal  to  do  him  justice,  Mai  • 
colm  invaded  the  northern  counties,  but,  when  he  was 


He  is  sur¬ 
prised  and 
slain  at 
Alnwick. 


besieging  Alnwick,  was  surprised  by  Robert 
Mowbray,  Earl  of  Northumberland,  and 
slain.  Margaret  died  soon  after,  and  Scot¬ 
land  became  the  victim  of  a  civil  war.  The 


Keltic  population,  who  had  been  jealous  of  the  English 

sympathies  of  Malcolm  and  the  supremacy 

Civil  war  in  0f  Lothian,  followed  Donald  Bean,  the  bro- 
Scotland- 

ther  of  Malcolm,  who  also  gained  the  sup- 
port  of  Magnus  of  Norway ;  while  Malcolm’s  children 
led  the  English  party.  This  war  was  not  ended  till  the 
Edgar  year  1097,  when  Edgar,  the  son  of  Margaret, 

finally  as-  was  restored  by  Edgar  the  jEtheling,  with 

cends  the  to  o 

throne.  the  help  of  an  English  army  lent  him  by 

William.  Under  this  king  the  Anglicizing 
process  became  complete,  and  Scotland  became,  at  some 
little  distance  behind,  the  counterpart  of  England. 
Meanwhile  Rufus  had  been  engaged  in  crushing  an¬ 
other  rebellion  of  his  feudal  nobles  headed 
by  Mowbray,  Earl  of  Northumberland,  and 
in  another  w'ar  with  Robert.  On  this  occa¬ 
sion  he  ordered  a  general  levy  of  the  militia 
to  the  coast,  and  then,  exacting  ten  shillings 
from  each,  the  journey-money  they  had  re¬ 
ceived  from  their  counties,  sent  them  home 
again.  This  extortion  helped  to  fill  his  trea¬ 
sury,  but  the  war  was  not  carried  on  ;  and 
shortly  afterwards  Robert,  eager  to  join  the  first  Crusade, 
pledged  Normandy  to  his  brother  for  the  sum  of  6,666/, 


Wars  with 
feudal  barons 
and  Robert. 

1094. 

Peace  is 
made.  Robert 
pledges  Nor¬ 
mandy  to 
Rufus,  and 
goes  on  the 
Crusade. 

1096. 


1095-1099- 


William  Rufus. 


203 


In  the  Crusade  which  followed  but  few  of  William’s 
subjects  took  part.  It  was  not  till  the  second  Crusade 
that  England  caught  the  enthusiasm  of  the  The  t 
Continent,  and  joined  the  rest  of  Europe  in  Crusade, 
her  great  wars  against  the  East.  But  many  109 s-1099- 
a  Norman  noble  followed  Robert,  to  join  their  cousins  of 
the  South  on  the  shores  of  Palestine,  and  the  fortunes 
of  the  first  Crusade  are  so  closely  bound  up  with  the 
Norman  name  that  it  calls  for  a  passing  notice  here. 

To  understand  the  causes  of  the  Crusades  we  must 
remember  the  many  conflicting  emotions  which  stirred 
the  heart  of  Europe,  and  which,  for  once  . 

Many-sided 

united  in  the  Crusades,  hurled  Western  causes  of  the 

.  »  Crusades. 

Europe  upon  Asia. 

These  causes,  as  far  as  the  masses  were  concerned, 
were  mainly  two. 

(1)  A  spirit  of  religious  enthusiasm.  This,  taking  as 
was  natural  in  those  days  an  outward  material  form,  had 
caused  that  great  monastic  revival  of  which 
we  have  before  spoken,  and  had  led  many  Religious 
pilgrims  along  the  weary  and  dangerous 
road  to  Palestine.  The  fascination  of  the  Holy.  Land 
was  irresistible.  Men  could  not  believe  that  there  was 
not  some  real  tangible  virtue  in  the  Holy  Land  itself. 
Would  not  the  mere  standing  on  the  ground  hallowed 
by  the  scenes  of  their  Lord’s  life  and  death  at  once 
purge  them  from  the  pollution  of  their  sins  and  make 
them  clean  ?  Thus,  as  we  draw  near  to  the  era  of  the 
Crusades,  there  is  hardly  a  king,  a  duke,  a  count,  who 
had  not  been  on  a  pilgrimage  to  the  holy  places,  or  had 
not  died  lamenting  that  death  had  cut  him  off  ere  his 
vow  had  been  fulfilled.  This  was  the  spirit  which  was 
lashed  to  religious  frenzy  by  the  news  that  Jerusalem 
had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  Turks  (1096),  that  the 


204 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


pilgrims  were  cruelly  treated,  and  that  the  Sepulchre  of 
our  Lord,  hitherto  respected  even  by  Mahometans,  was 
treated  with  contempt. 

(2)  There  was  that  spirit  of  adventure,  which,  often 
degenerating  into  reckless  license,  alone  explains  the 
anarchy  of  the  times.  In  the  Crusade  men 
adventure  saw  ^or  t^e  ^rst  t‘me  t*le  possibility  of  satis¬ 
fying  these  strangely  divergent  passions,  and 
hence  in  part  the  extraordinary  enthusiasm  which  seized 
on  Western  Christendom.  Hitherto  these  discordant 
impulses  had  conflicted  and  had  caused  the  strange 
contrasts  marking  the  lives  of  the  men  of  the  earlier 
ages — cruelty  and  rapacity  alternating  with  strange  fits 
of  terrified  devotion.  A  life  spent  in  wild  license  sud¬ 
denly  hid  in  the  obscurity  of  a  monastery ;  men  expiating 
past  misdeeds  by  frantic  efforts  of  self-abasement. 

But  among  the  leaders  these  simple  motives  were 
supplemented  and  sometimes  obscured  by  others.  The 
Pope  saw  in  the  crusades  the  only  hope  of  a 
poUcy'of  the  great  coalition  against  the  infidel  foe.  The 
Popes.  Turkish  hosts  were  threatening  Europe,  and 

if  not  .checked  in  time  the  struggle  might  have  to  be 
fought  out  in  Europe  itself.  Europe,  unconscious  as  she 
was  of  her  unity,  knew  not  how  to  coalesce.  The  Church 
alone  formed  a  bond  of  union,  and  the  only  hope  of 
united  action  lay  in  a  religious  war.  So  thought  Gregory 
VII.  himself,  and  he  had  tried  to  preach  a  Crusade  before 
his  death.  To  this  view,  in  the  case  of  Urban  II.,  was 
added  the  imperative  necessity  of  gaining  the  aid  of  Eu¬ 
rope  against  his  rival  the  anti-pope,  set  up  byHenry  IV. ; 
and  how  could  this  be  better  done  than  by  his  enemy  the 
Emperor  preaching  a  crusade,  and  thus  assuming  the 
leadership  of  the  great  Christian  army,  whose  designs,  it 
might  be  said,  the  Emperor  was  thwarting  by  his  owrn  self- 


1095-1099- 


William  Rufus. 


205 


Increase  of 
commerce. 


Desire  to 
win  new 
principali¬ 
ties  in  the 
East. 


ish  aims  ?  The  commercial  towns  of  Italy  looked  to  these 
Crusades  in  the  hope  of  re  establishing  their  commerce 
with  the  East,  which  had  been  endangered  by  the  fall 
of  Jerusalem,  at  that  time  the  market  for 
Eastern  goods.  But,  lastly,  the  counts  and 
feudal  lords  of  Europe  hoped  to  carve  princi¬ 
palities  for  themselves  out  of  the  wealthy  East.  We  have 
mentioned  a  few  of  the  many  causes  which 
led  to  the  Crusades,  because  these  alone  ex¬ 
plain  the  strange  unanimity  which  for  once 
seized  Europe.  For  the  rest  we  must  content 
ourselves  with  dwelling  on  the  influence  of  the  Normans 
upon  the  first  Crusade. 

No  king  or  emperor  joined  the  first  Crusade.  It  was 
rather  a  war  of  counts  and  dukes.  Viewed  from  this 
aspect,  it  assumes  the  appearance  of  a  great 
family  coalition,  and  divides  into  four  lead¬ 
ing  interests. 

(1)  The  Lorraine  and  Flemish  interest, 
headed  by  Godfrey  of  Bouillon,  Duke  of  Lorraine;  Robert, 
Count  of  Flanders;  and  Baldwin  of  Hainault,  his  cousin. 

(2)  The  Vermandois  party,  headed  by  Hugh  ofVer- 
mandois,  brother  of  Philip,  King  of  France,  who,  through 
his  marriage  with  Adela,  heiress  of  the  old  Counts  of 
Vermandois,  was  closely  connected  with  the  Lorraine 
and  Flemish  interests. 

(3)  The  Norman  party,  headed  by  Bohemond,  Prince 
ofTarento;  Tancred,  his  cousin;  and  Robert,  Duke  of 
Normandy. 

All  these  were  more  or  less  united  by  fnces'Vf"'^ 
ties  of  blood  and  interest.  The  Counts  of  Normans- 
Flanders  were  connected  with  the  ducal  houses  of  Nor¬ 
mandy  and  Apulia  by  marriage ;  with  the  houses  of 
Boulogne  and  Vermandois  by  the  tie  of  sympathy.  The 


Influence  of 
Normans  on 
first  Crusade. 
A  family 
coalition. 


206 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


house  of  Boulogne  had  long  had  dealings  with  the  Nor¬ 
mans  of  England.  Eustace,  the  father  of  the  Crusader, 
had  been  one  of  the  Normanizing  party  under  Edward 
the  Confessor,  then  a  rebel  under  William  I.  Eustace, 
this  man’s  son,  had  joined  Robert  against  William 
Rufus,  and  was  eventually  to  become  the  father-in-law 
of  our  King  Stephen,  the  last  of  the  Norman  dynasty 
in  England.  The  relations  between  Normandy  and  the 
south  of  Italy  were  no  less  close.  No  direct  marriage 
indeed  took  place  between  the  princely  houses  of  Nor¬ 
mandy  and  Italy ;  but  Count  Roger  married  a  distant 
relation  of  the  Conqueror.  The  real  connection,  how¬ 
ever,  is  to  be  found  in  the  intercourse  between  the  two 
countries.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  similarity  of  the 
government  of  Sicily  with  that  of  Norman  England. 
We  find  a  justiciary  and  a  constable  mentioned  in  Sicily 
as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  the 
Sicilian  kings  also  had  an  exchequer,  the  idea  of  which 
was  probably  borrowed  from  Normandy  or  England. 
But  through  the  Church  lay  the  chief  bond  of  union. 
Many  a  Norman  and  English  ecclesiastic  wandered 
south,  and  became  bishop  in  Apulia  or  Sicily.  The 
architecture  of  Normandy  may -have  borrowed  the 
pointed  arch  from  the  Saracen  buildings  of  Sicily  ;  while 
in  the  southern  churches  we  easily  detect  the  Norman 
mouldings  and  tracery.  Norman  monasteries  were 
founded  by  Guiscard  in  Italy,  as  dependencies  of  St. 
Evroul.  Hence  a  constant  intercourse  between  Nor¬ 
mandy  and  Italy,  and  from  the  chronicle  of  Ordericus 
Vitalis,  the  monk  of  Evroul,  we  learn  much  of  the  Norman 
doings  in  Italy,  and  the  Norman  view  of  the  Crusades. 

Thus,  then,  the  first  Crusade  may  under  one  aspect  be 
called  a  great  Norman  family  alliance  ;  and  though  the 
Lorraine  interest  was  greatest  at  Jerusalem,  that  of  the 


William  Rufus. 


1099. 


207 


Types  of  the 
various  cru¬ 
sading  cha¬ 
racters. 
Godfrey  of 
Bouillon 
and  Tancred 
of  Sicily. 


Normans  of  Italy  affected  in  no  slight  manner  the  cha¬ 
racter  of  the  expedition  itself. 

The  members  of  this  family  coalition  severally  repre¬ 
sent  the  various  types  of  crusaders  and  the  divergent 
motives  under  which  they  acted.  Godfrey 
of  Bouillon  and  Tancred  of  Sicily  are  fair 
representatives  of  the  religious  devotees 
who  entered  upon  the  Crusades  as  others 
had  gone  upon  pilgrimages,  in  the  simple 
spirit  of  devotion,  and  yearned  to  win  back 
the  Sepulchre  from  the  sacrilegious  hands  of  the  Turks. 
Robert  of  Normandy  best  represents  the  wild  spirit  of 
adventure  which  found  so  congenial  a  field  in  the  cru¬ 
sading  wars.  His  impatience  of  restraint 
had  led  him  to  quarrel  with  his  father.  His  Robert  of 

^  _  Normandy. 

carelessness  had  brought  Normandy  into 
anarchy  and  reduced  himself  to  penury.  And  now,  with 
the  same  indifference  to  the  future,  he  had  pledged  his 
ducal  crown  of  Normandy  to  his  brother,  and  went  on  a 
crusade,  not  to  win  a  dominion  in  the  East,  but  only  to 
satisfy  his  roaming  love  of  knight-errantry,  eventually  to 
return  once  more  to  trouble  Normandy  with  his  bad  gov¬ 
ernment,  and  finally  to  end  his  foolish  life  in  durance  at 
Cardiff.  In  Bohemond  we  see  the  type  of 
those  who  joined  the  Crusade  for  motives 
of  self-aggrandizement.  To  Bohemond,  a 
calm  and  cold  politician,  politics  stood  in 
the  place  of  religion  ;  he  used  the  religious 
enthusiasm  of  others  to  carry  out  his  long- 
cherished  schemes  of  conquest.  The  eldest  son  of 
Robert  Guiscard,  he  had  taken  a  prominent  part  in  his 
father’s  wars  against  the  Eastern  Empire.  On  his  death, 
Guiscard  left  Apulia  to  his  second  son  Roger,  while  to 
Bohemond  was  granted  the  principality  of  Tarento  and 


Bohemond 
uses  Cru¬ 
sades  as  a 
continua¬ 
tion  of  his 
wars  against 
the  Eastern 
Empire. 


208 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


Bari,  with  the  traditions  of  his  father’s  exploits — the 
hope  of  winning  an  empire  in  Dalmatia,  Epirus,  and 
Thessaly.  To  Bohemond,  therefore,  the  Crusade  ap¬ 
peared  as  an  opportunity  of  pressing  his  political  schemes, 
and  of  gaining  a  principality,  if  not  in  Thessaly,  at  least 
somewhere  in  the  East,  perhaps  even  of  winning  Con¬ 
stantinople  itself.  If  we  may  believe  the  chronicler 
William  of  Malmesbury,  he  urged  Urban  to  the  Crusade 
for  this  very  purpose;  and  his  future  policy  shows  clearly 
that  he  cared  nothing  for  the  success  of  the  ostensible 
objects  of  the  Crusade. 

Such  were  the  many-sided  interests  which,  for  a  short 
time  united,  led  to  thefirst  Crusade.  Into  the 
details  we  cannot  enter.  Suffice  to  say,  that 
the  close  of  the  eleventh  century  found  a 
Frankish  kingdom  founded  on  the  shores  of 
Palestine:  Godfrey  of  Bouillon  King  of  Jeru¬ 
salem  ;  Baldwin,  his  brother,  at  Edessa  in  Me¬ 
sopotamia;  Bohemond,  with  a  semi-indepen¬ 
dent  principality,  at  Antioch  ;  and  Tancred, 
holding  the  city  of  Caipha  on  the  seaboard. 

Thus,  then,  with  the  first  Crusade  the  Norman  power 
reached  its  climax.  The  Norman  not  only  ruled  in 
England  and  Normandy,  Apulia  and  Sicily,  but  had 
spread  to  the  far  East,  and  was  the  first  to  plant  his  foot 
on  the  shores  of  Palestine,  where  no  European  had  ruled 
since  the  days  of  Heraclius  (a.d.  628). 

Meanwhile  in  England  Rufus  had  been  enjoying  the 
material  prosperity  so  often  permitted  to  the  wicked.  He 
had  triumphed  over  the  Scots  and  the  Welsh. 
The  last  rebellion  of  his  nobles  had  been 
ruthlessly  crushed.  The  Church  was  com¬ 
pletely  at  his  feet.  Anselm  had  been  driven  from  Eng¬ 
land  in  1097.  Thomas,  Archbishop  of  York,  who  enjoyed 


Frankish  king¬ 
dom  of  Jerusa¬ 
lem,  1099. 
Godfrey  of 
Bouillon,  King 
of  Jerusalem. 
Baldwin  of 
Edessa.  Bo¬ 
hemond  at 
Antioch. 
Tancred  at 
Caipha. 


Success  of 
Rufus. 


1099- 


William  Rufus. 


209 


His  open 
profligacy. 


a  precarious  greatness  in  consequence  of  the  exile  of 
Anselm,  was  on  his  death-bed,  and  William  had  in  his 
hands  all  the  domains  of  the  archbishopric  of  Canterbury, 
those  of  the  bishoprics  of  Winchester  and  Salisbury, 
together  with  those  of  twelve  or  more  of  the  richest 
abbeys  of  England.  Freed  thus  from  the 
restraint  of  those  who  would  have  been  his 
censors,  he  openly  spoke  of  turning  all 
ecclesiastical  property  into  fiefs,  declared  that  he  would 
become  a  Jew  if  they  could  beat  the  Christians  in  argu¬ 
ment,  and  daily  became  more  reckless  and  profane. 
“  Never  day  dawned,”  says  his  chronicler,  ”  but  he  rose  a 
worse  man  than  he  had  lain  down ;  never  sun  set  but  he 
lay  down  a  worse  man  than  he  had  risen.’’  Yet,  in  spite 
of  his  wickedness,  he  had  energy  and  ability.  Had  these 
been  only  directed  to  better  ends,  England  might  have 
blessed  instead  of  cursing  his  name  As  it  was,  the  feudal 
nobility  were  at  least  kept  down  ,  the  incorporation  of 
Cumberland  with  England,  which  may  be  dated  from  his 
reign,  as  well  as  the  conquest  of  South  Wales,  were 
lasting  additions  to  the  strength  of  his  country  ;  and  the 
Tower  of  London,  completed  by  him,  and  the  noble  Hall 
of  Westminster,  built  at  this  date,  still  stand  as  memorials 
of  his  greatness.  Abroad  he  was  equally  successful. 
Anxious  to  gain  the  allegiance  of  Normandy  secllrcs  and 
against  the  return  of  Robert,  his  government  pacifies 
there,  in  contrast  to  that  of  England,  was 
discreet  and  moderate.  Order  and  justice,  both  neglected 
by  his  careless  brother,  were  restored,  and  the  country 
flourished.  The  vacant  abbeys  and  sees  were  all  filled 
up.  The  royal  domains,  which  had  been 
dissipated  by  the  extravagance  of  Robert,  Successful 
were  restored,  and  the  Norman  barons  who  Philip  of 
held  lands  in  Normandy  and  England  quietly 


Normandy. 


France. 


210 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


acquiesced  in  an  undivided  allegiance.  Strong  in  Nor¬ 
mandy,  he  waged  a  successful  war  against  Philip  of 
France,  and  soon  gained  the  castle  of  Gisors,  an  important 
outpost  surrendered  by  Robert.  Maine  indeed  he  never 
gained.  This,  the  first  conquest  outside  the  duchy  made 
by  William  I.,  had  never  acquiesced  in  the 
Norman  rule.  Profiting  by  the  disturbed 
condition  of  Normandy  under  Robert,  it  had 
once  more  rebelled,  under  Helie  de  la 
Fleche,  nephew  of  Count  Herbert,  and  renewed  its  allegi¬ 
ance  to  the  Count  of  Anjou.  Though  Rufus  once  retook 
Maine,  his  authority  was  never  recognized,  and  the  county 
was  not  secured  to  England  till  the  reign  of  Henry  I. 

In  spite,  however,  of  this  repulse,  the  power  of  Rufus 
increased  day  by  day,  until,  puffed  up  by  his  successes, 
he  spoke  of  conquering  Ireland  and  claiming  the  throne 
of  France,  even  of  taking  Rome  itself. 

From  these  ambitious  dreams  he  was  suddenly  called 
away  by  an  ignominious  death,  Among  the  acts  of  his 
father  none  had  caused  more  misery  or  stirred  more 
deeply  the  heart  of  the  English  against  him  than  his 
,,  cruel  clearing  of  the  New  Forest  for  the  deer 

Rufus  he  loved  so  well.  Under  his  son  the  Forest 

the  Forest  laws  and  courts  had  been  used  as  engines 

Laws-  of  tyranny.  There  arbitrary  custom  pre¬ 

vailed.  The  courts  were  presided  over  by  special  officials, 
who  were  irresponsible,  except  to  the  king,  and  laws 
drawn  up  rather  for  the  protection  of  the  beasts  of 
chase  than  of  the  king’s  subjects.  On  one  occasion 
Rufus  had  refused  to  accept  the  verdict  of  the  ordeal  by 
which  fifty  Englishmen  had  freed  themselves  from  the 
accusation  of  poaching,  declaring  that  God  was  no  judge 
of  offences  against  the  forest  laws.  Cursed  by  such  laws 
as  these,  the  fair  glades  of  the  forest  were  looked  upon 


Practical  in¬ 
dependence 
of  Maine. 
1096-1099. 


1 1 00. 


Henry  /. 


21 1 


as  haunted,  and  fatal  to  the  Conqueror’s  family.  There 
his  son  Richard  had  died  a  mysterious 
death,  and  there  another  Richard,  son  of 


The  New 
Forest 
fatal  to  the 

Robert,  had  fallen  at  the  beginning  of  the  Conqueror's 


year  by  an  ill -aimed  bolt.  Numerous 


family. 


portents  warned  the  king  that  his  end  was  near.  Even 
he  himself  had  been  terrified  by  an  awful  dream.  But 
William  heeded  not :  “  Do  they  think  me  an  Englishman 
to  put  offa  journey  for  an  old  wife’s  fancy  ?”  Death  0f 
he  cried  ;  and  from  a  last  wild  debauch,  he  William  ^ 
went  into  the  forest  to  die.  Whether  he  was  New  Forest, 
slain  by  the  accidental  aim  of  Walter  Tyrrel, 
or  by  falling  on  the  point  of  an  arrow  as  he  stooped  over 
his  prey,  or  by  the  hands  of  some  of  those  half-starved 
peasants  whose  homes  had  been  destroyed  to  yield  him 
sport,  none  can  say.  He  died  unloved  and  unblessed. 
His  body,  dragged  into  Winchester  by  one 
sorry  horse,  found  indeed  a  grave  amongst  honoured 
the  old  kings  of  England,  but  received  no  bunaL 
Christian  burial ;  and  when,  a  short  time  after,  the  tower 
of  Winchester  fell,  men  said  it  was  a  sign  of  God’s  wrath 
because  his  cursed  body  had  found  a  resting-place  within 
that  sacred  pile. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

HENRY  I.  IIOO-II35. 

During  the  reign  of  Rufus,  Henry  had  lived  partly  in 
Normandy,  partly  in  England.  In  Normandy  he  held  the 
castle  of  Domfront  and  the  Cotentin,  which 
he  had  bought  from  the  needy  Robert,  En-  Henry  I**  °f 
joying  here  almost  independent  power  over 
one-third  of  the  duchy,  he  had  spent  his  time  in  pleasure 
with  his  mistress,  Nesta,  princess  of  South  Wales,  and  in 


212 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


literary  pursuits,  by  which  he  stands  in  marked  contrast 
to  the  rest  of  his  family.  Thus  occupied,  and  in  occa¬ 
sional  visits  to  England  to  join  in  the  pleasures  of  the 
chase,  he  had  taken  little  part,  in  the  quarrels  between 
his  brothers,  but  waited  with  well-concealed  impatience 
until  the  time  should  come  for  the  fulfilment  of  his 
father’s  prophecy.  And  now  the  day  had  come.  He  had 
„  ,  been  hunting  in  the  New  Forest  when  his 

He  hastens  to  . 

Winchester  brother  was  killed.  On  hearing  the  news, 
royal  trea-  he  rode  at  once  to  Winchester  to  secure  the 
sure-  royal  treasure,  and  claim  the  crown ;  and  so 

opportunely  had  the  death  of  Rufus  happened,  that  some 
even  whispered  that  the  murder  had  been  done  at  his 
instigation. 

Robert,  having  failed  to  gain  the  crown  of  Jerusalem, 
was  now  on  his  way  home,  bringing  with  him  his  Italian 
bride,  Sibylla  of  Conversana.  A  few  days 
more,  and  he  would  have  been  again  in 
Normandy  to  demand  the  crown  by  the 
terms  of  the  treaty  of  Caen  (1091).  But  Ro¬ 
bert  still  was  absent ;  the  title  to  the  crown 
was  not  yet  hereditary,  it  was  held,  therefore,  that  an 
interregnum  ensued  upon  the  death  of  the  king.  From 
the  last  king’s  death  till  the  proclamation  of  the  new 
king  s  peace,  all  law  was  at  an  end,  and  none  could  be 
punished  for  their  lawless  deeds.  In  the  face  of  the  uni¬ 
versal  hatred  which  Rufus  had  inspired,  and  the  many 
smouldering  elements  of  anarchy  which  existed,  this 
was  a  forcible  argument  in  Henry’s  favour,  and  his 
promptitude  and  energy  did  the  rest. 

In  vain  William  of  Breteuil  pressed  the  claims  of  Ro¬ 
bert  in  the  interest  of  those  Norman  nobles  who  now  as 
ever  wished  England  and  Normandy  to  be  united  on 
account  of  the  personal  advantages  to  be  gained  there- 


Return  of 
Robert  trom 
the  Crusade. 
Henry 

crowned  King 
of  England. 


I  lOO. 


Henry  /. 


213 


by.  He  was  overruled.  The  form  of  elec¬ 
tion  was  gone  through  by  the  barons  who  Prepresses'11 
were  on  the  spot,  and  Henry  hastened  to  o{ 

London  to  secure  that  important  town,  and 
to  press  on  his  coronation. 

Conscious  of  the  weakness  of  his  title,  Henry  shrewdly 
saw  that  the  crown  was  to  be  won  and  held  only  by 
ready  conciliation  of  all  classes.  Hence  he 
forthwith  granted  a  charter,  which  was  the 
first  granted  by  the  Norman  kings,  and  was 
considered  so  valuable  that  it  formed  the 
basis  for  the  future  Magna  Carta  of  the  reign  of  John. 
“  Know  ye,"  the  charter  begins,  “  that  by  the  mercy  of 
God  and  the  common  counsel  of  the  barons  of  the  whole 
realm  of  England,  I  have  been  crowned  king."  Having 
thus  acknowledged  the  elective  character  of  his  crown, 
he  proceeds  to  specify  the  abuses  of  the  late 
reign  and  to  forbid  them  for  the  future.  The  Feudal 

0  clauses. 

barons  are  conciliated  by  the  restriction  of 
the  feudal  dues  and  aids.  The  reliefs  are  to  be  mode¬ 
rate  ;  the  lords’  rights  of  wardship  and  marriage  are 
defined.  Widows  are  to  be  allowed  their  right  of  dower. 
Tenants  by  knight  service  are  freed  from  all  demands 
except  service  in  the  field  ;  and  the  barons  are  allowed 
to  bequeath  their  personal  property  by  will. 

The  lower  vassals  are  conciliated  by  the  promise  that 
their  over-lords  shall  do  the  same  to  them  as  the  king 
did  to  the  tenants-in-chief. 

To  the  people  peace  and  good  coinage  are  promised. 
The  fines  are  to  be  moderated,  the  arrears  of  debt  due  to 
the  crown  remitted.  The  laws  of  Edward 
the  Confessor,  bv  which  is  meant  the  old  Non-feudal 

.  .  J  clauses. 

institutions,  shall  be  re-established,  with  such 
amendments  as  had  been  made  by  his  father,  with  the 


Henry 
conciliates 
all  classes. 
His 

Charter. 


214 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


The  forests 
retained. 
Ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  clauses. 
Anselm  re¬ 
called. 


Flambard 

imprisoned. 

Henry  mar¬ 
ries  Matilda 
of  Scotland. 


consent  of  his  barons.  But  forests  as  they  were  in  the 
Conqueror’s  time  are  retained  with  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  barons.  To  the  Church  he 
promises  that  he  will  not  keep  the  pro¬ 
perty  of  vacant  benefices,  and  that  he  will 
free  them  from  all  unjust  exactions.  Nor 
was  this  all.  Anselm  was  immediately  recalled,  the 
bishoprics  were  filled  up  by  good  appointments,  and  the 
oppressive  minister  Ranulf  Flambard,  to  whom  much  of 
the  misery  of  the  past  reign  was  attributed, 
was  called  to  account  and  imprisoned. 
Finally,  .Henry’s  marriage  with  Matilda, 
daughter  of  Malcolm  of  Scotland,  niece  of 
Edgar  ALtheling,  and  thus  heiress  of  the 
Saxon  line,  was  looked  upon  as  a  pledge 
that  he  meant  to  rule  as  an  English  national  king. 

In  these  conciliatory  measures  of  Henry  I.  we  see  how 
fortunate  it  was  for  England  that  the  crown  was  not 
vet  hereditary,  and  the  value  of  these  early 

V qlue  of  the  J  .  tt  j  *1  r  -v 

elective  disputed  successions.  Had  the  sons  ot  the 

principle.  Conqueror  succeeded  him  by  strict  here¬ 

ditary  right,  the  crown  would  have  been  absolutely  des¬ 
potic.  But  as  it  was,  each  king  was  forced  to  lean  upon 
the  people,  to  impose  restrictions  on  his  own  irresponsi¬ 
bility,  and  to  acknowledge  his  people’s  rights  and  his 
own  duties. 

The  Norman  barons,  however,  resented  this  English 
policy ;  especially  were  they  indignant  at  Henry’s  mar¬ 
riage  with  Matilda.  They  called  the  couple 
sneeringly  “Goodrich  and  Godiva,’  and,  as¬ 
sisted  by  Ranulf  Flambard,  who  had  escaped 
from  the  Tower,  they  invited  Robert  to  claim 
his  own.  The  invasion  was  skilfully  ma¬ 
naged,  and  many  of  the  barons,  headed  by 


Robert,  as¬ 
sisted  by  the 
Norman 
baronage, 
invades 
England, 

IIOI. 


Henry  I. 


i ioo-i IOI. 


2I5 


Robert's 
supporters. 

Among  the 


Henry's 

supporters. 


Reconcilia¬ 
tion.  Robert 
resigns  the 
crown. 

Renewed 

quarrel. 


Robert  of  Belesme,  Count  of  Alemjon  in  France  and  Earl 
of  Shrewsbury  in  England,  and  William  of 
Warenne  Earl  of  Surrey,  flocked  to  his 
standard  when  he  landed  at  Portsmouth. 

But  the  English  stood  true  to  Henry 
barons,  Robert,  Count  of  Mellent,  afterwards 
Earl  of  Leicester,  his  brother  the  Earl  of 
Warwick,  and  Roger  Bigod  supported 
Henry’s  cause.  Anselm  threatened  the  Church’s  ex- 
communication,  and  Robert,  fearing  to  try  the  chance  of 
a  battle,  consented  to  a  peace,  by  which  he 
once  more  resigned  the  crown  of  England, 
and  contented  himself  with  the  full  posses¬ 
sion  of  Normandy  and  3,000  marks  a  year. 

The  quarrel  which  afterwards  ensued  be¬ 
tween  the  two  brothers  was  no  longer  about 
the  crown,  but  about  the  power  of  enforcing  obedience 
on  those  Norman  barons  who  held  property  in  both 
countries.  In  its  course  it  clearly  illustrated  the  absolute 
necessity  either  that  Normandy  and  England  should  be 
under  the  same  ruler,  or  that  the  Norman  barons  should 
choose  whether  they  would  be  English  or  Norman  sub¬ 
jects,  and  cease  to  pay  a  divided  allegiance.  If  every 
feudal  rebel  could  fall  back  upon  his  possessions  in  Nor¬ 
mandy  when  driven  from  England,  and  there  prepare  a 
new  rebellion  against  the  king,  there  could  be  no  hope 
for  the  peace  of  either  country. 

No  sooner  therefore  had  Robert  retired  than  Henry 
turned  upon  the  barons  who  had  defied  his  authority. 
William,  Count  of  Mortain,  who  claimed  the  .. 

Henry  re- 

earldom  of  Kent  as  a  nephew  and  heir  of  duces  the 
Odo  of  Bayeux,  and  Ivo  of  Grantmesnil,  who  rebe* baruni' 

had  attempted  to  introduce  the  right  of  private  war  into 
England,  were  driven  from  the  realm.  Robert  of  Be- 


216  The  Normans  in  Europe.  A.  D. 

lesme,  Earl  of  Shrewsbury,  who  had  long  been  one  of 
the  most  factious  of  the  nobles,  held  out  in  his  castles  of 
Shrewsbury,  Arundel,  and  Bridgnorth,  until  Henry 
marched  against  him  with  the  w'hole  force  of  the  nation, 
and  forced  him  to  fly  and  retire  to  Normandy. 

The  joy  of  the  English  at  the  fall  of  these  nobles  is 
seen  in  the  triumph  of  the  chronicler  Or- 
^nglish.he  deric  Vitalis ;  “Rejoice,  all  England  and 
King  Henry,  and  thank  the  Lord  God,  for 
you  became  a  free  king  on  the  day  when  you  banished 
Robert  of  Belesme.” 

To  all  these  exiles  Normandy,  under  the  weak 
Robert,  offered  a  tempting  refuge.  Joining  with  the  dis¬ 
affected  nobles  there,  they  reduced  the  coun¬ 
try  to  a  state  of  utter  anarchy.  The  people 
filled  the  churches  with  their  property  to 
save  it  from  the  marauding  barons.  The 
power  of  Robert  was  at  an  end,  and  he  him¬ 
self  was  plundered  by  his  rebellious  vassals 
so  that  he  often  lacked  bread  to  eat,  and  was  forced  to 
lie  in  bed  for  want  of  clothes  to  wear.  The  cruelties  of 
Robert  of  Belesme  surpass  belief.  He  is  said  to  have 
impaled  men  and  women,  and  out  of  wantonness  to 
have  plucked  out  the  eyes  of  a  child  as  he  held  it  at  the 
font. 

Henry  accordingly  interfered,  and  complaining  that 
his  brother  had  broken  his  treaty  by  sheltering  the  exiles 
from  England,  he  invaded  Normandy.  He 
was  bought  off  by  the  cession  of  the  County 
of  Evreux,  but  two  years  afterwards  he 
again  landed  in  Normandy  to  win  the  battle 
of  Tinchebrai,  where  his  brother  and  Wil¬ 
liam  Count  of  Mortain  fell  into  his  hands. 
The  Count  of  Mortain  was  blinded,  and  Robert,  sent  a 


IIO4. 

Henry  re¬ 
monstrates 
and  invades 
Normandy. 

1106. 
Battle  of 
Tinchebrai. 


Normandy 
the  refuge 
for  the 
exiles.  Con 
sequent 
anarchy 
there. 


1104-1106.  Henry  I. 

prisoner  to  the  castle  of  Cardiff,  spent  the 
rest  of  his  useless,  aimless  life  in  honorable 
captivity.  Robert  of  Belesme,  who  in  1112 
fell  into  Henry’s  hands,  also  remained  a 
captive  till  his  death. 

Thus  once  more  were  England  and  Normandy  united. 
Henry  apparently  did  not  assume  the  title  of  duke  until 
his  brother’s  death,  at  the  age  of  eighty,  in 
1134.  But  from  the  battle  of  Tinchebrai  he  ^n°drEngdy 
undertook  the  government  of  the  duchy.  land  UIJlted- 

0  J  Henry  s 

His  policy  there  forms  a  contrast  to  that  policy  in 
pursued  in  England.  In  England  he  confis-  Normandy- 
cated  the  estates  of  all  who  rebelled.  In  Normandy, 
with  a  few  exceptions,  he  contented  himself  with  garri¬ 
soning  their  castles  lest  by  more  extreme  measures  he 
might  throw  the  Norman  nobles  to  the  side  of  his  jealous 
suzerain  the  king  of  France.  Thus  when  Robert  of 
Belesme  died,  he  allowed  his  son  William  Talvas  to 
succeed  to  the  Norman  estates  of  his  father.  By  these 
wise  measures  he  reduced  the  nobles  to  obedience  and 
the  country  to  peace,  and,  in  spite  of  several  wars  with 
the  King  of  France,  Normandy  enjoyed  a  security  which 
it  had  never  known  under  the  restless,  careless  hand  of 
Robert. 

At  this  time  Wales  demanded  the  attention  of  Henry. 
Constant  border  warfare  had  continued  there  between 
the  Welsh  and  the  Lords  on  the  Marches, 
and  the  Welsh  had  joined  the  rebellion  of  and 

Belesme.  The  means  adopted  by  Henry 
to  increase  the  English  influence  in  Wales  were  twofold. 
First  he  attempted  to  subordinate  the  Welsh  Church  to 
Canterbury  by  pressing  his  nominees  into  the  Sees  and 
forcing  them  to  receive  consecration  from  Canterbury,  a 
policy  which  was  deeply  resented  by  the  Bishop  of  St. 


217 


Robert  im¬ 
prisoned  in 
Castle  of 
Cardiff. 


2l8 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.D. 


David’s  who  claimed  metropolitan  authority.  Secondly 
^  he  established  in  Pembrokeshire  a  colony 
colony  in  of  Flemings  who  at  this  time  were  flocking 

shirebr0ke  to  England,  driven  from  Flanders  by  one 

II!I-  of  those  inundations  of  the  sea  which  oc¬ 

curred  periodically  in  their  low-lying  home.  This  settle¬ 
ment  near  Tenby,  did  something  to  introduce  the 
knowledge  of  the  woolen  trade  and  agriculture  into 
Wales,  and  formed  a  nucleus  of  order  and  advance. 
But  insurrections  still  continued,  and  Wales  was  never 
quiet  until  entirely  subdued  by  Edward  I. 

Meanwhile  in  England  Henry  had  been  engaged  in  a 
„  ,  . .  quarrel  with  Anselm.  Since  the  reign  of 

Quarrel  with  A  ° 

Anselm  William  I.  a  death  struggle  had  been  carried 

investitures,  on  between  Pope  and  Emperor  on  the  ques- 
IIOO‘  tion  of  investitures.  The  claim  to  invest  the 

bishops  with  the  ring  and  crozier,  the  ecclesiastical 
symbols  of  office,  had  formed  a  crucial  point  in  the 
system  of  Gregory  VII.  The  Church  was  to  be  free  from 
the  secular  power,  and  dependent  on  the  Pope.  But 
how  could  this  be,  how  could  simony  be  checked,  and  a 
recurrence  of  the  shameful  abuses  of  the  reign  of  Rufus 


prevented,  unless  the  Pope  had  the  undisputed  right  of 
thus  confirming  or  annulling  elections  ?  This  was  the 
papal  view  ;  and  Anselm,  coming  fresh  from  the  Council 
of  Rome  where  lay  investiture  had  been  condemned, 
refused  either  to  accept  the  symbols  of  his  office  from  lay 
hands  or  to  pay  the  homage  demanded  by  the  king. 
When  the  demand  was  made,  Anselm  referred  to  the 
canons  of  the  Church.  Henry  answered,  “What  have  I 
to  do  with  a  Roman  canon  ?  No  one  shall  remain  in 
my  land  who  will  not  do  me  homage.”  Cherishing  the 
customs  of  his  father,  he  was  determined  not  to  abate 
a  jot  of  his  authority  over  the  Church ;  he  would  ex- 


\b  H  4  f?  y> 


TRINITY  COLLEGE 


carol.' 


i ioo-i 106. 


Henry  I. 


219 


ercise  that  authority  more  decently  than 

his  brother,  but  that  was  all.  Anselm,  true  Henry  main- 

tains  the  cus- 

to  his  papal  views,  held  to  his  refusal.  Un-  t°ms  of  Wil- 

satisfactory  negotiations  ensued  with  Paschal 

II.,  who  was  anxious,  if  possible,  to  prevent  a  quarrel 

with  a  new  foe  until  he  had  humbled  the  emperor ;  and 

Anselm  once  more  went  into  exile,  to  meet 

only  with  lukewarm  support  from  the  Pope.  goeT  intoSex- 

In  1 105,  however,  Henry,  anxious  to  gain  ile’  I100‘ 

assistance  in  his  Norman  war,  and  fearing  the  threatened 

excommunication,  once  more  recalled  the  archbishop, 

and  the  following  year  saw  the  question 

settled,  as  it  was  sixteen  years  afterwards  He  is  recalled, 

J  and  the  ques- 

between  Pope  and  Emperor  at  the  Diet  of  tion  compro- 
Worms.  By  this  compromise  the  Pope  re¬ 
tained  the  right  of  investing  with  the  ring  and  crozier, 
while  the  king  was  to  confer  the  temporalities  of  the  see 
and  receive  the  oath  of  fealty  from  the  bishop.  Had  the 
king  gained  the  exclusive  right  of  investiture,  the  inde¬ 
pendence  of  the  Church  would  have  been 
endangered;  she  would  have  become  feu-  mise a°good°" 
dalized  and  subservient,  and  thus  lost  the  one' 
secret  of  her  moral  influence.  Had  the  king  surrendered 
all,  the  Church  would  have  formed  a  separate  power 
within  the  realm,  owing  allegiance  to  a  distant  superior, 
and  have  gained  a  freedom  dangerous  to  the  State.  As 
it  was,  Pope  and  King  obtained  all  they  could  reasonably 
desire:  the  king  was  secured  in  his  just  right  as  feudal 
lord,  the  bishops  could  not  deny  their  allegiance  in  tem¬ 
poral  concerns,  or  rebel  without  breaking  their  oath  of 
fealty.  The  Pope  could  check  the  growth  of  simony,  and 
enjoy  the  supremacy  over  his  clergy  as  head  of  the  Wes. 
tern  Church.  The  Church,  connected  with  the  rest  oi 
Christendom,  and  the  ecclesiastical  centre  at  Rome,  re- 


220 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.D. 


Importance 
of  Anselm's 
opposition. 


Subsequent 
ecclesiastical 
policy  of 
Henry  I. 


tained  her  power  and  vitality.  The  quarrel 
had  been  useful  in  other  ways.  In  the  resist¬ 
ance  of  Anselm  to  Rufus  and  Henry  we  see 
the  first  constitutional  opposition  to  the  irresponsible  pow¬ 
er  of  the  king.  By  it  the  king  was  taught  that  there  was  a 
limit  to  his  power,  an  authority  above  him  with  which 
he  must  reckon,  and  the  people  learnt  their  right  and 
duty  of  resisting  arbitrary  rule. 

The  general  ecclesiastical  policy  of  the  king  was 
marked  by  the  same  spirit  of  compromise.  The  Pope 
had  long  claimed  the  right  of  sending  legates  into  the 
country  as  his  representatives.  These  le¬ 
gates  did  not  interfere  with  the  ordinary 
duties  of  the  archbishop,  but  were  invested 
with  the  extraordinary  powers  enjoyed  by 
the  Pope  alone.  In  virtue  of  this  they  took  precedence  of 
the  archbishop,  superintended  the  ecclesiastical  synods, 
and  administered  the  more  important  affairs  of  the 
Church.  This  right  was  not  denied ;  but  Henry,  con¬ 
scious  that  the  due  independence  of  the  Church  might  thus 
be  encroached  upon,  insisted  that  his  consent  should  first 
be  obtained  before  the  legate  could  land.  The  synod, 
might  be  called  when  the  archbishop  chose,  but  the 
king's  sanction  must  be  obtained  before  they  could 
meet.  The  chapters  were  to  enjoy  the  right  of  election; 
but  the  election  must  be  in  the  king’s  court,  and  after 
his  conge  d'  Hire.  In  every  point  Henry  maintained 
the  principles  of  his  father’s  customs,  and  asserted  his 
position  as  ruler  of  the  national  Church ; 
but  within  these  limits  the  freedom  of  the 
Church  and  the  papal  supremacy  were  al¬ 
lowed,  and  in  the  exercise  of  his  control 
Henry’s  conduct  was  dictated  not  by  caprice, 
as  in  the  case  of  William  Rufus,  but  by  the 


Henry  I.  as¬ 
serts  the  na¬ 
tionality  of 
the  Church 
and  the 
authority  of 
the  king. 


1 100--1 106. 


Henry  I. 


221 


dictates  of  a  wise  and  consistent  policy.  Anselm  did 

not  long  survive  his  return.  The  rest  of  his 

life  was  devoted  to  the  administration  of  his  Anselm 

enforces 

See,  and  the  enforcement  of  the  celibacy  of  celibacy  on 
the  clergy.  In  this  he  pursued  a  more  rigor-  tht  dcrgy 
ous  course  than  Lanfranc.  The  married  clergy  were 
driven  from  office,  and  the  act  of  marriage  condemned 
as  absolutely  sinful.  But  the  national  feeling  was  al¬ 
ways  against  the  papal  view;  it  was  constantly  evaded, 
and  Anselm’s  attempt  did  not  meet  with  complete  suc¬ 
cess.  He  had  been  all  along  striving  to  establish  the 
system  of  Hildebrand  in  England,  a  system  which  was 
distasteful  to  the  English,  and  therefore  he  never  entirely 
succeeded  ;  but  in  the  reign  of  Rufus  he  had  boldly  stood 
forth  as  the  champion  of  a  higher  morality  against  a 
wicked  tyrant,  and  his  opposition  to  Henry  was  marked 
by  the  same  purity  and  singleness  of  motive. 

The  ecclesiastical  history  of  the  reign  is  also  marked 
by  the  foundation  of  two  new  sees,  those  of 
Ely  (1109)  and  Carlisle  (1133,)  and  the  in-  and*  Carlfs'le 
troduction  of  the  Cistercian  order  of  monks  Cistercians, 
into  England.  This  order,  founded  by  an  Englishman, 
Stephen  Harding,  at  Citeaux  in  Burgundy  (1109),  devo¬ 
ted  themselves  to  agricultural  pursuits,  while  the  earlier 
orders  had  betaken  themselves  chiefly  to  the  towns.  The 
reign  of  Henry  I.  saw  three  of  their  monasteries  estab¬ 
lished  in  England :  those  of  Waverly  in  Surrey  (1 128), 
Rievaux  in  Northumberland  (1131),  and  Fountains  in 
Yorkshire  (1132).  In  England  the  Cistercians  became 
great  sheep-farmers,  and  many  of  our  most  famous  houses 
belonged  to  the  order. 

No  sooner  was  the  question  of  investiture  settled  than 
Henry  was  Called  abroad.  The  possession  of  Normandy 
brought  Henry  into  immediate  contact  with  France, 
Q 


222 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


where  Lewis  VI.  was  ruling,  the  first  of  those 
France^u ii-  great  princes  to  whom  is  due  the  ultimate 
II13'  overthrow  of  feudalism.  As  a  boy  he  had 

been  sent  to  the  English  court  with  sealed  letters  from 
his  stepmother,  in  which  Henry  was  requested  to  kill 
him.  Henry  had  declined  to  do  so,  and  thus  had  a 
claim  to  the  gratitude  of  his  suzerain.  But  personal  ties 
gave  way  to  motives  of  public  policy.  The  power  of 
England  threatened  France,  and  Lewis  returned  to  the 
traditional  policy  of  the  French  king  in  supporting  rebel- 
_  .  ,,,  lions  against  the  overgrown  power  of  his 

Lewis  VI.  sup-  °  or 

ports  the  vassal.  The  state  of  Normandy  gave  him 
Wilham  the  opportunity  to  interfere.  The  disaffec- 

c'llto'  ted  nobles  disliked  the  firmness  of  Henry's 

rule.  The  doubtful  claim  of  Henry  to  supremacy  over 
the  Counties  of  Vexin,  Evreaux,  and  Alencon,  were 
fruitful  causes  of  dispute.  Fulk  of  Anjou,  ever  jealous 

of  the  Norman  power,  again  claimed  the 
Fulk  v  r  >  o 

claims '  supremacy  of  Maine  on  the  death  of  Helie 

Mame’  de  la  Fleche,  who  had  acknowledged  the 

right  of  Henry.  Baldwin  VII.  of  Flanders  joined  the 
coalition,  and  a  pretender  to  the  duchy  was  found  in 
William  Clito,  son  of  Robert  of  Normandy.  Success, 
however,  smiled  on  Henry’s  arms.  The  Count  of  Anjou 
was  bought  off  by  the  marriage  of  his  daughter  to  Wil¬ 
liam,  Henry’s  only  son.  Robert  of  Belesme 
fell  into  Henry’s  hands,  and  Lewis,  defeated 
by  Theobald  of  Blois  in  the  interests  of 
Henry,  submitted  to  the  treaty  of  Gisors,  by 
which  he  abandoned  the  cause  ofWilliam  Cli¬ 
to  and  acknowledged  Henry’s  lordship  over 
Brittany,  Alencon,  and  Maine.  Henry  then 
strengthened  his  position  by  the  marriage  of 
his  illegitimate  daughter  to  Conan  of  Brit- 


Prince  Wil¬ 
liam  mar¬ 
ried  to  the 
daughter  of 
Fulk  V. 
Treaty  of 
Gisors,  1 1 13. 
Alliances 
with  the 
Emperor 
Henry  V. 
and  Brit¬ 
tany.  Prince 
William 


nil-1119. 


Henry  I. 


223 


tany,  and  of  his  legitimate  daughter  Matilda  acknow- 
to  the  Emperor  Henry  V.,  while  the  ac-  ledged  he,r' 
knowledgmentof  his  son  William  as  his  heir  was  wrested 
from  the  barons  of  England  and  Normandy. 

War,  indeed,  broke  out  again,  and  once  more  Baldwin 
of  Flanders,  Fulk  of  Anjou,  and  Lewis  sup¬ 
ported  the  cause  of  the  son  of  Duke  Robert.  Re»ewed 

war,  ms. 

But  Henry  was  again  successful.  Baldwin 
was  killed,  Fulk  was  again  won  over,  and 
a  skirmish  at  Brenneville,  in  which  Lewis  Brenneville 
was  defeated,  brought  the  second  war  to  a  II'9' 
close. 

At  this  moment  the  death  of  Henry’s  son  William 
threatened  to  undo  the  painful  work  of  years.  As  he 
was  returning  in  triumph  to  England,  the 
ship  in  which  William  sailed  was  wrecked  Prince  °f 

off  Barfleur.  The  prince  had  managed  to  William, 

gain  a  boat  and  pushed  off  from  the  sinking  ship,  but 
the  cries  of  his  sister  recalled  him  to  the  wreck.  The 
boat  was  capsized  by  the  rush  of  the  despairing  crew, 
and  one  alone  survived  to  bring  the  news  to  Henry. 
Crushed  by  this  sudden  loss,  Henry  is  said  never  to 
have  smiled  again. 

The  death  of  the  Prince  was  a  severe  domestic  afflic¬ 
tion  ;  but  that  was  not  all.  He  was  Henry’s 
only  son,  and  no  woman  had  yet  ruled  in  Ffa‘?'  resu\'s 
England  ;  thus  the  hopes  of  seeing  his  fami¬ 
ly  established  in  England  received  a  cruel  blow.  The 
ties  of  interest  which  bound  Fulk'of  Anjou 
to  Henry  were  destroyed  by  the  death  of  Fulk  v-  a£ain 
William,  who  had  been  married  to  the  William 
daughter  of  the  Angevin  count,  and  Fulk  '  ’  Ilz4’ 
once  more  took  up  the  cause  of  William  Clito.  His 
daughter  Sibylla  was  affianced  to  the  pretender.  Lewis 


224 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


VI.  again  threatened  to  join  the  coalition,  and  Henry 
was  forced  to  engage  in  another  war  in  Normandy. 

But  fortune  favored  him  once  more.  Fulk 
h^doL^Tto  shortly  after  resigned  his  estates  to  his 
his  son^  and  ac-  eldest  son,  and,  marrying  the  heiress  of  the 
of  Jerusalem,  kingdom  of  Jerusalem,  accepted  that  pre- 
CLto,  112S.  Nor-  canous  crown.  I  he  rebels  were  discom- 
Maine  Secured  fited,  and  three  years  afterwards  the  death 
Brittany  renews  of  William  Clito  rid  Henry  of  the  only 

her  allegiance. 

competitor  for  the  duchy  of  Normandy. 
Maine,  which  had  been  a  source  of  continual  trouble  to 
William  and  his  sons,  was  definitely  secured,  and 
Henry's  rights  as  lord  over  Brittany  were  acknowledged. 

The  prophecy  of  William  was  now  fulfilled,  and  Henry 
enjoyed  a  larger  dominion  than  that  enjoyed  by  the  Con¬ 
queror  himself.  Normandy  and  Maine  were  at  last  de¬ 
finitely  united  to  England.  These  Conti- 
Henry’s  nental  dominions  formed  part  of  the  English 
dominions.  kingdom  until  they  were  finally  lost  in  the 
reign  of  John.  But  this  triumph,  though  increasing  the 
power  of  the  English  king,  was  not  a  benefit  to  the  Eng¬ 
lish  people.  It  once  more  made  England  part  of  a  great 
Continental  kingdom,  to  which  her  own  interests  were 
likely  to  be  sacrificed.  It  gave  the  nobles  increased 
power,  the  results  of  which  were  seen  in  the  succeeding 
reigns.  During  that  of  Stephen,  for  instance,  the  long 
wars  were  due  chiefly  to  the  nobles  who  hoped  thereby 
to  increase  their  independence,  and  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  II.  the  power  they  had  thus  gained  was  once 
more  used  to  rebel  against  the  strong  anti  feudal  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  king.  Lastly,  English  nationality  could 
never  be  established  until  England  was  split  off  from 
Normandy  and  the  Continent,  and  left  alone  to  work  out 
her  national  life  for  herself. 


II24-H35- 


Henry  I. 


225 


Henry 
attempts  to 
secure  the 
succession  of 
the  Empress 
Matilda. 


She  is 
married  to 
Geoffrey  IV. 
of  Anjou. 
2128. 


Secure  at  last  in  the  possession  of  Normandy  and 
England,  Henry  now  turned  his  attention  to  the  question 
of  the  succession.  Matilda,  his  wife,  had  died 
in  1 1 18.  He  had  afterwards  married  Ade- 
lais  of  Louvain.  His  new  wife,  however, 
bore  him  no  child,  and  it  remained  to  secure 
the  succession  of  Matilda  his  daughter,  who 
on  the  death  of  her  husband,  the  Emperor  Henry  V., 
had  returned  a  widow  to  her  father’s  court.  The  barons 
w-ere  ordered  to  swear  allegiance  to  her,  and  shortly  . 
afterwards,  anxious  to  secure  the  alliance  of  Anjou, 
Henry  married  her  to  Geoffrey,  the  son  of 
Fulk.  By  this  means  he  hoped  to  win  the 
friendship  of  the  house  of  Anjou,  always  so 
hostile  to  the  Norman  power,  as  he  had  done 
before  by  the  marriage  of  his  son  William.  But  the 
barons  declared  that  their  oath  of  alliance  had  been 
given  on  the  promise  that  Matilda  should  not  marry  a 
foreigner  without  their  consent,  and  the  hereditary 
jealousy  of  the  Normans  for  the  Angevins  caused  many 
of  them  to  abandon  Matilda  for  the  cause  of  Stephen  on 
Henry’s  death. 

Henry  was  still  in  Normandy  arranging  the  disputes 
caused  by  the  marriage  when  he  died,  it  is 
said,  from  eating  too  heartily  of  a  dish  of 
lampreys. 

Amid  the  constant  wars  which  had  disturbed  his  reign, 
Henry  had  found  time  to  improve  the  ad¬ 
ministration  of  the  country ;  and  his  reign  of 
thirty-six  years  forms  a  prelude  to  that  of 
Henry  II.  in  this  as  in  many  other  respects. 

In  fact,  the  three  reigns  ofWilliam  I.,  Henry 
I.,  and  Henry  II.,  the  three  great  organizers 
of  feudal  England,  stand  closely  together. 


Henry  dies, 
Dec.  1135. 


Henry's  ad¬ 
ministra¬ 
tion.  Its 
relation  to 
that  of  Wil¬ 
liam  I.  and 
Henry  II. 


220 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


In  Henry’s  quarrel  with  Anselm  the  same  principles 
were  involved  as  in  William’s  dispute  with  the  Pope,  and 
these  were  again  to  appear  in  the  quarrel 
Church  0f  Becket  and  Henry  II.,  though  the  comba¬ 

tants  had  somewhat  changed  their  ground. 

We  have  seen  the  quarrels  between  the  king  and  his 
feudal  nobles,  which  had  begun  in  the  reign  of  William, 
continued  in  that  of  Henry  I.  The  reign  of 
Anti-feudal  Stephen  undid  much  of  Henrv’s  work  which 

policy.  1  " 

was  left  for  Henry  II.  to  complete.  In  this 
struggle  the  kings,  in  spite  of  the  arbitrary  character  of 
their  rule,  had  been  striving  for  the  good  of  the  country; 
the  feudal  nobles  aiming  to  establish  their  independence 
at  the  cost  of  the  nation’s  welfare.  It  was  well  for  Eng¬ 
land  that  her  early  kings  were  so  strong,  for  else  she 
might  have  suffered  from  the  evils  of  a  Continental  feu¬ 
dalism,  and  her  history  might  have  been  a  counterpart  to 
that  of  France. 

In  the  administration  of  justice  and  in  the  organization 
of  the  executive  power,  the  same  connection  between 
the  reigns  is  seen,  the  same  anti-feudal  ten- 

Administra-  .....  . 

tion  of  dency  appears,  and  one  reign  is  illustrative  of 

the  other.  Henry’s  father  had  continued 
the  Anglo-Saxon  local  courts  of  the  Hundred  and  the 
Shire.  During  the  reign  of  William  Rufus  they  had  been 
suffered  to  fall  into  disuse.  The  nobles  probably  had 
tried  to  encroach  upon  their  jurisdiction  or  to  get  rid  of 
them  entirely,  and  under  Ranulf  Flambard  they  had  been 
used  for  the  purposes  of  fiscal  extortion,  and  thus  became 
objects  of  suspicion  to  the  people  themselves.  These 
courts  Henry  now  revived,  and  promised  that 
for  future,  when  he  had  need  of  money, 
he  would  not  demand  it  at  the  ordinary  ses¬ 
sions,  but  summon  these  courts  especially  for  the  pur- 


uoo-1135- 


Henry  /. 


227 


pose.  The  local  courts  thus  revived,  it  was  necessary  to 
draw  them  closer  to  the  central  court  of 

Centrahza- 

justice — the  Curia  Regis,  introduced  by  Wil-  tion  in- 

liam  his  father.  The  means  resorted  to  were  LIxabt-d- 
these.  The  duties  of  the  Curia  Regis  and  its  financial  com¬ 
mittee  were  systematized,  the  offices  of  the  justiciary  and 
those  of  his  staff  of  justices  organized.  By  his  circuits  to 
the  local  courts  their  dependence  was  secured.  Already 
the  justices,  his  subordinates,  began  to  take  his  place, 
and  making  their  eyres  (circuits)  chiefly  to  superintend 
the  collection  of  the  royal  dues,  and  therefore  in  their 
office  as  Barons  of  the  Exchequer,  led  the  way  for  the 
definite  establishment  of  Justices  in  Eyre  by  Henry  II. 
In  some  cases  the  justices  were  made  sheriffs  of  several 
counties,  and  thus  presiding  in  the  regular  sessions  of 
the  Shire  courts,  connected  them  closely  with  the  central 
court  of  the  king.  To  carry  on  this  work  new  officers 
were  required,  and  Henry,  neglecting  the 
old  nobility  who  had,  by  their  continual 
rebellions,  forfeited  all  title  to  his  confi-  ministerial 
dence,  turned  to  the  lower  ranks  of  the  nobll,t> 
noble  order.  Thence  he  created  a  class  of  ministerial 
families  who  furnished  the  sheriffs  of  the  counties,  the 
justices  of  the  Curia  Regis,  and  the  barons  of  the 
exchequer,  and  greatly  facilitated  Henry’s  policy.  They 
were,  indeed,  unpopular,  but  for  that  very  reason  they 
served  Henry’s  purpose  all  the  better.  They  were  bound 
by  interest  to  the  crown  ;  they  were  not  too  powerful  to 
be  brought  to  justice,  and  their  acts  were  closely  criticized 
by  nobles  and  by  people.  The  most  important  of  these 
new  ministers  was  Roger,  Bishop  of  Salis¬ 
bury.  Henry  had  first  met  him  when  a  Bishop  of 
poor  priest  in  Normandy.  Attracted,  as  the  Salisbury, 
story  runs,  by  the  wit  which  the  poor  priest  had  shown 


Creation  of 


228 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


in  discerning  his  impatience  to  hasten  to  the  hunt,  and 
satisfying  it  by  shortening  the  service,  Henry  made  him 
his  steward  and  chaplain.  Here  his  great  powers  of 
administration  were  displayed,  and  finally  he  rose  to  be 
Bishop  of  Salisbury  and  justiciary.  The  choice  was 
wisely  made.  To  Roger  is  chiefly  due  the  fiscal  organiza¬ 
tion  of  the  office  and  of  the  Curia  Regis,  the  control  of 
which  remained  in  his  family  for  nearly  a  century. 

While  thus  advancing  the  administration  of  justice 
and  introducing  order  and  routine,  Henry  was  not  re- 


Police. 


gardless  of  other  interests.  His  charters  to 
towns'5”  l°  ^le  town  mark  a  step  in  the  growth  of  mu¬ 
nicipal  life,  and  a  wise  recognition  of 
their  claims.  His  police,  tco,  was  good.  The  system  of 
frankpledge  was  maintained  and  developed. 
By  this  every  one  had  to  find  a  surety ;  if 
he  was  a  vassal,  his  lord  was  answerable ;  if  a  freeman, 
the  association  of  freemen  to  whom  he  belonged.  The 
false  coiners  were  heavily  punished,  and  a  new  coinage 
issued. 

In  every  way  the  reign  of  Henry  I.  was  a  gain  to 
England.  It  marks  a  distinct  advance  in  the  growth  of 
national  life,  and  in  the  progress  of  arbitrary  but  good 
administrative  government :  and  it  is  to  Henry’s  credit 
that  he  has  earned  the  title  of  the  Lion  of  Righteousness. 

But  withal  Henry  was  an  irresponsible  despot,  and 
loved  to  be  so.  With  all  his  father’s  military  and 
administrative  sagacity,  he  was  more  cruel 
Hen”'Ctier°f  anc^  Perhaps  even  more  tyrannical.  He 
refused  to  give  up  the  forests ;  those  who 
dared  gainsay  him  or  rebel  against  him  were  punished 
with  merciless  rigour,  and  Henry  would  listen  to  no  will 
but  his  own. 

His  great  judicial  reforms  are  probably  to  be  attributed 


IIOO-U35- 


Henry  I. 


229 


lo  no  higher  motive  than  the  love  of  order  and  the  desire 
to  increase  his  revenue  by  the  fines  of  the  courts. 
Hence  his  heavy  taxation,  a  continual  source  of  lament 
in  the  chronicles  of  the  reign.  “The  manifold  taxes 
never  ceased.  He  who  had  any  property  was  bereaved 
of  it  by  heavy  taxes,  and  he  who  had  none  starved  with 
hunger.’’  His  wars  in  Normandy,  his  wars  against  his  no¬ 
bles,  all  are  to  be  referred  to  his  overmastering  selfishness. 
But,  fortunately  for  England,  that  selfishness  was  clear¬ 
sighted  and  far-sighted,  and  his  own  private  aims  tallied 
with  the  interest  of  the  nation.  The  nobles  were  his 
enemies;  he  destroyed  them,  and  in  doing  so  destroyed 
the  enemies  of  the  nation.  Anarchy  was  hateful  to 
him  :  he  substituted  the  reign  of  routine,  and  thus  pre¬ 
pared  the  way  for  law,  which  might  in  time  itself  set  a 
limit  to  royal  irresponsibility. 

Thus,  while  the  people  could  not  love  him,  they  re¬ 
spected  and  they  feared  him,  and  this  accounts  for  the 
varying  characters  left  of  him  by  the  chroniclers.  “Men 
thought  differently  about  him,”  says  Henry  of  Hunting¬ 
don,  “and  after  he  was  dead  spoke  their  minds: — some 
spoke  of  splendour,  wisdom,  prudence,  wealth,  and  vic¬ 
tories— some  of  cruelty,  avarice,  and  lust."  The  lower 
classes  were  very  miserable  throughout  his  reign;  the 
constant  wars  rendered  taxation  necessary ;  a  series  of  bad 
harvests  and  stormy  seasons  made  the  burden  heavier. 

Henry,  in  spite  of  the  support  given  him  by  the  Eng¬ 
lish,  was  at  heart  a  foreigner.  No  Englishman  found  a 
place  amongst  his  ministers.  No  Englishman  found 
preferment  in  the  Church.  The  two  nations  were  gradu¬ 
ally  uniting,  so  that  in  the  reign  of  Henry  II.  we  are  told 
it  was  difficult  to  distinguish  between  them;  but  yet  the 
English  found  no  recognition  of  their  claims  at  the  hand 
of  their  Norman  king. 


230  The  Normans  in  Europe.  a.  d. 

And  yet,  while  the  English  complained,  they  instinc¬ 
tively  supported  the  king,  acknowledged  that  he  sought 
for  peace,  and  saw  that  their  only  hope  lay  in  strength¬ 
ening  the  royal  power  and  thereby  crushing  the  feudal 
nobility.  ^ 

“  Inflexible  in  the  rigour  of  justice,  he  kept  his  native 
people  in  quiet  and  his  barons  according  to  their  deserts,” 
says  William  of  Malmesbury  ;  while  Henry  of  Hunting¬ 
don  tells  us  “  that  in  the  evil  times  that  followed,  the 
very  acts  of  tyranny  or  of  royal  wilfulness  seemed  in 
comparison  with  the  worse  state  of  things  present  most 
excellent.” 

Henry  was  the  last  of  those  great  Norman  kings  who, 
with  all  their  vices,  their  cruelty,  and  lust,  displayed 
great  talents  of  organization  and  adaptation,  guided  Eng¬ 
land  with  a  wise  if  a  strong  hand  through  the  days  of  her 
youth,  and  by  their  instinctive  though  selfish  love  of 
order  paved  the  way  for  the  ultimate  rise  of  a  more 
stable  yet  a  freer  government. 

That,  however,  was  yet  in  the  womb  of  the  future, 
and  the  Norman  period  closes  in  the  anarchy  of  Stephen's 
reign. 

Of  that  reign  we  do  not  intend  to  treat.  It  forms 
rather  the  prelude  to  the  reign  of  Henry  II.  The  Nor¬ 
man  era  really  ends  with  Henry  I.,  for  Stephen  was  only 
a  Norman  by  the  spindle  side,  as  was  Henry  II.  the 
Angevin,  and  throughout  the  reign  all  constitutional 
history  is  at  a  standstill. 

It  is  a  period  unexampled  in  English  history,  a  period 
during  which  England  suffered  all  the  ills  of  Continental 
feudalism. 

Amidst  the  anarchy  of  the  civil  war,  the  nobles 
covered  the  country  with  their  castles,  set  authority  at 
defiance,  fostered  the  continuance  of  discord  for  their 


Henry  I. 


i*35- 


231 


own  ends,  and  strove  to  establish  their  selfish  indepen¬ 
dence. 

In  the  misery  which  ensued,  the  lower  classes,  both 
Norman  and  English,  were  learning  their  identity  of  in¬ 
terest  against  such  men  as  these,  with  whom 
they  felt  that  no  truce  should  be  kept.  Beneficial 

Ti  ■  r  11  1  r  results  of 

raintully  but  surely  they  were  drawn  to-  the  civil 

gether  into  a  close  national  unity,  and  to  an  "‘,r’ 
intense  yearning  for  peace,  which  led  them  one  and  all 
to  welcome  the  strong  rule  of  Henry  II.,  and  any  gov¬ 
ernment  which  might  crush  out  for  ever  this  hateful 
Continental  feudalism.  Thus  the  reign  of  Stephen, 
though  it  closes  the  Norman  period  in  sorrow  and  shame, 
was  yet  a  valuable  discipline  for  the  country,  and  formed 
a  secure  basis  for  the  reforms  of  Henry  II.,  who  took  up 
the  work  where  Henry  I.  had  left  it,  and  completed  it. 

We  have  now  traced  the  course  of  that  great  Scandi¬ 
navian  exodus,  which,  beginning  in  the  ninth  century, 
spread  over  the  whole  of  Europe.  Having 
briefly  sketched  the  fortunes  of  the  less  im-  ReYle,w  °f  the 

J  period. 

portant  branches,  we  have  devoted  especial 
attention  to  the  settlements  in  France,  which  assumed 
the  specific  name  of  Norman.  After  following  their  for¬ 
tunes  in  France  we  have  accompanied  them  in  their 
various  settlements  in  Spain,  Italy,  and  England.  Finally 
concentrating  our  attention  on  the  latter  country,  where 
their  genius  receives  its  most  forcible  development,  we 
have  traced  the  connection  between  it  and  Normandy, 
and  in  greater  detail  drawn  out  their  influence  on  our 
country  and  the  principles  of  our  government.  With  the 
reign  of  Henry  I.  the  Norman  kings  reached  their  highest 
pitch  of  power.  After  him  their  kingdom  passed  away— 
first  to  the  house  of  Blois,  then  to  that  of  Anjou.  With 
both  these  houses  they  had  long  been  connected,  with 


232 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


A.  D. 


both  an  hereditary  and  deadly  hostility  had  existed  from 
the  earliest  times.  But  though  the  Norman  power  thus 
slipped  away  from  the  direct  descendants  of  Rollo,  the 
Norman  influence  was  not  destroyed  in  England.  They 
never  were  driven  out.  They  coalesced  with  the  Eng¬ 
lish,  and  lost  their  individuality  in  the  common  na¬ 
tionality ;  but  they  long  enjoyed  the  chief  positions  in 
the  state,  and  the  Norman  administrative  and  executive 
machinery  still  lies  embedded  in  our  constitution  side  by 
side  with  the  local  institutions  of  the  Anglo-Saxons. 

It  will  be  well  at  the  close  of  our  survey  to  cast  our 
eyes  abroad,  and  take  a  last  glance  at  the  condition  of 
the  other  Scandinavian  or  Norman  powers.  The  con¬ 
tinents  of  Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Norway  had  long 
_  ,. .  ,  settled  down  into  organized  communities, 

Condition  of  0 

the  Scandi-  and  for  half  a  century  had  not  troubled 

navian  and  ,  T  ...  .  ,  ,  . 

Norman  JLurope.  Norway  still  enjoyed  her  nominal 

kingdoms.  sway  over  the  Orkneys,  the  Shetlands,  and 
the  districts  of  Sutherland  and  Caithness  in  Scotland, 
these  not  being  ceded  to  the  Lowlands  till 
I469'  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century. 

In  Iceland  the  free  republic  was  on  the  point  of  being 
dismembered  by  the  rise  of  an  aristocracy,  and  one 
century  later  was  once  more  to  be  occupied  by  Norway. 
To  the  west  of  Scotland  lay  the  sovereignty  of  the  Isles, 
consisting  of  the  Hebrides  and  other  islands  along  the 
coast,  as  well  as  certain  settlements  in  Anglesea,  Man, 
and  Ireland.  This  kingdom,  under  the  Lords  of  the 
Isles,  owned  allegiance  to  Norway,  but  was  virtually 
independent.  Of  these  Anglesea  and  Ireland 
fell  to  England  in  the  reign  of  Henry  II., 
Man  long  enjoyed  semi  independence  under  its  own 
lords,  while  the  Hebrides  were  ceded  to  Scotland  in  the 
latter  half  of  the  thirteenth  century. 


IJ35- 


Henry  I. 


233 


In  Italy  the  Norman  kingdom  of  Apulia  and  Sicily  still 
belonged  to  the  descendants  of  Robert  Guiscard,  and  main¬ 
tained  constant  intercourse  with  England.  Underthis  line 
of  kings  it  continued  until  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century, 
when  their  dominion  passed  away,  with  the  hand  of  Con¬ 
stance  the  Norman  heiress,  to  the  Emperor  Henry  VI. 

In  Palestine  the  Norman  nobles  still  held  some  fiefs; 
and  the  Frankish  name  was  to  continue  there,  but  with 
fast  declining  power,  until  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  cen¬ 
tury  (1291).  In  Russia  the  descendants  of  Ruric  still  sat 
on  the  throne  of  Kiev,  until  they  should  be  subdued  by 
the  Tartar  invasion  of  the  same  century  (1240). 

Thus  the  end  of  the  Norman  period  in  England 
nearly  synchronizes  with  that  of  their  rule  elsewhere. 
They  had  been  the  leaders  during  a  most 
important  epoch  of  European  history.  I  hey  the  Nor- 
had  seen  the  foundation  of  most  of  the  future  Europe' 
great  European  powers.  For  two  centuries 
at  least  they  had  been  the  most  influential  people  in 
Europe.  They  had  formed  the  nucleus  of  cohesion 
amidst  the  fluctuating  state  of  European  nationalities. 
Wherever  they  went  they  had  shown  themselves  great 
warriors,  founders,  organizers,  and  administrators.  With 
extraordinary  powers  of  adapting  themselves  to  outward 
and  altered  circumstances,  they  had,  while  adopting  the 
systems  of  their  conquered  subjects,  developed  them, 
added  to  them,  and  perfected  them.  To  them  France 
owes  the  establishment  of  her  national  kings,  nay  almost 
her  very  existence  as  the  kingdom  of  France;  southern 
Italy  a  dynasty  under  which  she  enjoyed  a  prosperity 
denied  her  since;  Russia  a  long  line  of  powerful  and 
clever  princes;  Iceland  a  free  republic;  England  a  stern 
and  harsh  schooling  indeed,  but  a  useful  one — stern  law, 
the  suppression  of  anarchy,  the  establishment  of  order 


234 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


CH.  XVII. 


and  excellent  administration— all  essential  preliminaries 
of  true  progress. 

And  now  their  work  is  over.  The  Norman  period  is 
fast  waning.  New  ideas,  new  forms  of  government,  new 
systems  are  to  arise,  and  the  great  impulse  which  ori¬ 
ginally  had  come  from  the  Scandinavian  continents  is 
exhausted. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

NORMAN  ADMINISTRATION. 

The  great  constitutional  work  of  the  Anglo  Norman 
period  was,  as  we  have  seen,  the  organization  of  adminis¬ 
trative  routine. 

The  Norman  king  was  virtually  a  despotic  sovereign. 
William  gained  England  at  a  time  when  the  theoretical 
powers  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  king  were  at 
their  highest,  and  to  these  he  added  the  pre¬ 
rogatives  of  the  feudal  sovereign  without  the  practical 
limits  which  abroad  were  found  in  the  independence  of 
the  feudal  vassals.  The  nobles  enjoyed  none  of  the 
semi-royal  rights  or  jurisdiction  or  taxation  in  their  do¬ 
mains,  and  when  William  I.  exacted  the  oath  of  homage 
from  every  subject  at  the  Council  of  Sarum,  he  destroyed 
even  the  authority  which  the  feudal  vassals  abroad  en¬ 
joyed  over  their  sub  vassals. 

The  Witenagemot,  which  under  the  Anglo-Saxons  had 
served  as  a  constitutional  check  on  the  powers  of  the 
king,  was  turned  into  a  feudal  court,  the  creature  and 
the  servant  of  the  sovereign.  The  king  became  the  lord 
of  the  land  and  the  source  of  all  justice,  and  there  was 
no  authority  in  theory  or  in  practice  which  could  gainsay 
his  will.  One  limit  alone  remained:  the  crown  still  in 
theory  remained  elective,  and  the  right  of  deposition  was 


Norman  Administration. 


235 


preserved.  Hence  the  kings,  as  in  the  case  of  Rufus, 
Henry  I.,  and  Stephen,  were  forced  to  secure  their  title 
by  concessions,  which,  unfortunately,  there  was  no  con¬ 
stitutional  means  of  enforcing. 

The  king  thus  powerful  in  theory  and  in  practice,  the 
chief  interest  in  Norman  times  necessarily  centres  round 
his  person,  and  all  that  England  then  gained  must  be 
attributed  to  the  royal  authority  and  to  the 

/y  •  i  i  j  11'  rT'*i  .  The  officers 

officials  who  surrounded  him.  ihe  most  of  the  royal 

important  of  these  originally  were  the  High  household. 
Steward,  the  Chamberlain,  the  Constable,  officers  exclu¬ 
sively  of  the  royal  household,  which,  though  not  without 
analogies  in  Anglo-Saxon  times,  had  been  copied  by  the 
Norman  dukes  from  the  old  officials  of  the  Karolings. 
Of  these  officers,  the  High  Steward  or  Seneschal  acted  as 
supreme  official  in  the  royal  court;  the  Chamberlain  was 
the  financial  officer  of  the  royal  household ;  the  Constable 
was  the  Quartermaster  General  of  the  royal  army ;  he 
mustered  the  forces  and  ordered  their  disposition  on  ser¬ 
vice,  he  paid  the  mercenaries,  and  had  jurisdiction  over 
offences  against  the  laws  of  war  and  other  disputes  in 
the  army.  The  Constable  subsequently  shared  his  powers 
with  the  Marshal,  an  officer  of  later  creation,  who,  besides 
the  share  he  had  in  the  duties  of  the  Constable,  took 
especial  cognizance  of  disputes  in  the  court  itself. 

The  Steward,  the  Constable,  and  the  Marshal  each 
had  their  separate  courts  independent  of  the  common 
law,  and  in  later  times  these  were  the  object  of  much 
complaint,  as  interfering  with  the  right  of  a  subject  to  be 
tried  by  his  peers. 

By  the  side  of  these  officers  of  the  household  there 
rapidly  arose  a  ministerial  class  who  soon 
supplanted  them.  The  household  offices  be-  rL^offiiers'-0 
came  hereditary  in  certain  families  definitely 


2  36 


The  Nonnans  in  Europe. 


CH.  XVII. 


Ranulf 
Flambard 
and  Roger 
of  Salisbury 
organizers 
of  the  office. 


in  the  reign  of  Henry  II.,  and  fell  back  into  an  honourable 
position,  but  one  of  secondary  constitutional  importance. 

The  ministerial  officers  are  chiefly  these :  the  Justiciary, 
the  Treasurer,  the  Chancellor.  Of  these  the  Justiciary 
was,  in  the  Norman  times,  by  far  the  most 
Justiciary.  important.  The  origin  of  the  office  is  obscure. 
It  was  unknown  abroad  before  the  Norman  Conquest, 
and  was  therefore  of  purely  Anglo-Norman  creation. 
The  first  Justiciary  was  William  Fitz  Osbern,  the  steward 
or  seneschal  of  William,  and  this  has  been 
taken  as  an  indication  that  the  origin  is  to  be 
sought  in  the  seneschalship,  the  duties  of 
which  were  transferred  to  this  new  office. 
However  this  may  be,  Ranulf  Flambard,  the 
oppressive  minister  of  William  Rufus,  must  be  considered 
the  first  consolidator  of  the  office,  and  Roger  of  Salisbury, 
the  famous  minister  of  Henry  I.,  the  final  organizer  of 
its  duties.  His  powers,  growing  side  by  side  with  the 
advancing  centralization  of  government,  when  they 
reached  their  climax  in  the  reign  of  Henry  I.,  were  these  : 
His  duties  He  was’  ex~°ffic^°>  regent  of  the  kingdom  in 

and  pre-  the  king’s  absence.  He  was  the  president 

of  the  Curia  Regis,  and  of  its  financial  com¬ 
mittee  or  session,  the  Exchequer,  and  he  united  in  his 
own  person  all  the  rights  and  duties  of  supreme  financial, 
judicial,  and  executive  officer. 

He  was  surrounded  by  a  number  of  officers,  who, 
when  sitting  in  the  Curia  Regis  were  called  Justices,  but 
in  the  Exchequer,  Barons  of  the  Exchequer. 

Representing  the  king,  the  Justiciary  went  his  circuits, 
by  which  he  kept  the  local  courts  in  due  subordination, 
watched  over  the  financial  privileges  of  the  king,  and 
held  periodical  gaol  deliveries. 

Already  in  the  time  of  Henry  I.,  as  we  have  seen,  his 


Norman  Administration. 


237 


own  officers  of  justices  were  beginning  to  take  his  place 
owing  to  press  of  business  and  increasing  centralization, 
to  become  under  Henry  II.,  the  itinerant  Justices,  with 
regular  and  fixed  circuits. 

The  Justiciary  from  the  time  of  Ranulf  Flambard  was 
universally  an  ecclesiastic,  probably  to  prevent  the  great 
powers  of  the  office  from  becoming  the  prerogative  of 
any  one  family,  or  in  any  sense  hereditary,  and  because 
churchmen  alone  could  be  trusted  to  administer  these 
distinctly  anti-feudal  duties  faithfully. 

Next  to  the  Justiciary  came  the  Treasurer.  To  him 
was  entrusted  the  keeping  of  the  royal  trea¬ 
sure  of  Winchester.  He  was  an  important  The  Trea- 
officer  in  the  Exchequer,  and  received  the 
accounts  of  the  sheriff  in  that  court. 

The  Chancellor.  This  officer,  who  in  after  times  be¬ 
came  the  most  important  of  all,  and  the 
second  subject  of  the  realm  next  to  the  ccVio?han' 
Archbishop,  stood  only  third  in  Norman 
times. 

The  office  appears  in  England  as  early  as  the  reign  of 
Edward  the  Confessor,  and  was  probably  derived  from 
the  archicancellarius  of  the  Karolings.  The  derivation 
of  the  name,  the  “  cancelli,”  or  screen  behind  which  the 
secretarial  work  of  the  household  was  carried  on,  tells 
us  of  his  duties. 

He  was  the  Secretary  of  State  and  chief  of  the  clerks 
of  the  king’s  court.  Always  an  ecclesiastic,  he  held  the 
position  of  chief  chaplain  to  the  king.  He  kept  the 
king’s  conscience,  as  the  phrase  went,  and  adminis¬ 
tered  the  revenues  of  vacant  benefices  until  they  were 
filled  up. 

All  these  officials  were  members  of  the  Curia  Regis. 
This  term  seems  to  be  applied  indiscriminately  to  the 

R 


CH.  XVII. 


238 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


committee  of  the  Commune  Concilium,  and  to  the  su¬ 
preme  judicial  court  of  the  realm,  and  it  is 
RegisCur'a  by  no  means  improbable  that  they  were 
originally  one  and  the  same.  “  The  com¬ 
mittee  of  the  national  council  administering  justice  in 
virtue  of  the  king’s  assumed  presence  there,  or  the 
king’s  judicial  court  usurping  the  legislative  functions 
of  the  national  council.’’ 

It  is,  however,  with  the  Curia  Regis  as  a  judicial 
court  that  we  are  now  concerned.  Again  many  opinions 
have  been  held  as  to  the  origin  of  this  court. 
asSaPjudicial  Some  claim  for  it  a  purely  Saxon  origin,  and 
court-  look  upon  it  as  representing  the  committee 

of  the  old  Witenagemot.  By  others  it  is  declared  to  be 
of  purely  Norman  growth.  The  truth  seems  to  lie  be¬ 
tween.  No  doubt  the  dukes  of  Normandy  had  their  Curia 
Ducis,  or  feudal  court,  in  common  with  other  feudatories. 
This  they  brought  with  them  to  England,  and  uniting  it 
with  the  committee  of  the  Witenagemot  turned  it  into 
the  Curia  Regis.  For  the  rest,  its  powers  were  of  gra¬ 
dual  growth,  and,  as  they  appear  under  Henry  I.,  were 
different  at  once  from  its  Anglo-Saxon  and  Norman  pro¬ 
totypes  ;  a  court  of  Anglo-Norman  creation  and  organi¬ 
zation  with  a  double  origin. 

The  Curia  Regis  then,  as  a  judicial  court,  was  the 
court  of  the  king  sitting  to  administer  justice  with  his 
counsellors.  These  were  theoretically  all  the  members 
of  the  national  council — practically,  the  great  officers  of 
state,  and  a  few  expressly  summoned  justices  ;  and  in 
the  absence  of  the  king,  it  was  presided  over  by  the  jus¬ 
ticiary.  Its  original  jurisdiction  extended  to  disputes 
between  the  tenants  in  chief,  and  in  other  cases  where 
leave  had  been  obtained.  But  its  more  important  duties 
belonged  to  it  as  a  court  of  appeal  from  the  inferior 


Norman  Administration.  239 

courts.  In  this  way  the  local  courts  were  united  to  the 
central  courts,  and  this  connection  was  much  increased 
when  the  justices  of  the  supreme  court  became  itinerant 
justices  or  were  made  sheriffs,  as  was  the  policy  of 
Henry  I. 

When  sitting  for  financial  purposes  it  was  called  the 
Exchequer,  and  since  in  Norman  times  the  financial 
necessities  of  the  king  were  the  primary 
motives  in  developing  the  judicial  system, 
this  its  financial  side  was  the  most  impor¬ 
tant.  At  the  two  full  sessions  held  at  Easter  and 
Michaelmas,  the  sheriffs  appeared  and  paid  the  farm  of 
the  shire,  each  county’s  share  of  the  Danegeld,  the  pro¬ 
ceeds  of  the  pleas  of  the  crown,  and  the  feudal  dues  ; 
these,  with  the  sale  of  offices  and  exactions  under  the 
Forest  laws,  forming  the  chief  incidents  of  Norman  tax¬ 
ation.  The  Farm  of  the  Shire  was  the  sum  for  which 
the  shire  was  let  to  the  sheriff,  who  reimbursed  himself 
from  the  royal  dues,  the  fines  in  the  court,  the  profits 
from  the  royal  demesnes,  or  from  other  sources.  The 
Danegeld  was  a  tax  levied  since  Anglo-Saxon  times  for 
the  defence  of  the  realm,  but  much  increased  by  William 
I.  and  Henry  I.  The  Pleas  of  the  Crown  were  special 
offences,  the  fines  of  which  went  directly  to  the  crown  ; 
especially  the  murdrum,  or  sum  of  money  payable  by 
each  hundred  in  cases  where  a  murder  had  been  com¬ 
mitted  within  their  limits.  By  William  I.  this  was 
exacted  in  cases  where  the  murdered  man  could  not  be 
proved  to  be  an  Englishman,  and  the  verdict  which 
settled  this  was  called  the  Presentment  of  Englishry. 

Of  these  accounts  the  Treasurer  and  the  Chancellor 
each  kept  an  account,  termed  the  Pipe  Roll  of  the 
Treasurer,  and  the  Roll  of  the  Chancellor. 

Cases  of  dispute  were  settled  by  the  Barons  of  the 


2  40 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


CH.  XVII. 


Local 

courts. 


Exchequer,  who  went  their  circuits  for  this  purpose,  and 
these  were  probably  the  origin  of  the  later  judicial 
circuits  of  the  Justices  in  Eyre. 

Under  the  central  court,  with  its  two  sides,  judicial 
and  financial,  worked  the  local  courts  of  the  shire,  the 
hundred,  and  the  manor.  These  were  con¬ 
tinued  from  Anglo-Saxon  times,  and  the 
procedure  remained  the  same,  with  the  ad¬ 
dition  of  the  trial  by  combat  in  cases  where  Nor¬ 
mans  were  concerned,  and  the  inquests  by  sworn  jurors 
for  the  purpose  of  gaining  information,  such  as  that 
required  for  the  compilation  of  the  Domesday  Survey, 
for  the  assessment  of  taxation,  and  for  the  settlement  of 
disputes  concerning  land. 

In  the  Shire  court,  presided  over  by  the  sheriff,  the 
king's  nominee,  greater  causes,  civil  and  criminal,  were 
tried. 

The  hundred  court,  presided  over  by  the  bailiff,  settled 
small  disputes  of  debt ;  and  when  presided  over  by  the 
sheriff,  was  termed  the  Sheriff’s  leet  in  criminal  matters, 
the  Sheriffs  tourn,  for  holding  views  of  frank-pledge  in 
connection  with  the  system  of  police. 

The  bond  between  these  courts  and  the  central  court 
was  very  slight  at  first,  and  it  was  the  work  of  the 
Norman  period  to  draw  it  tighter.  William 
I.  had  for  this  purpose  resorted  to  the  cus¬ 
tom  of  holding  three  annual  sessions  of  the 
Curia  Regis  in  the  three  great  towns  of  the 
south,  Westminster,  Winchester,  and  Gloucester.  Henry 
I.  sent  his  Barons  of  the  Exchequer  to  sit  in  the  county 
court  for  the  assessment  of  revenue.  The  Justices  in  his 
reign  also  began  to  go  their  circuits,  and  were  often 
themselves  made  sheriffs,  by  which  the  subordination  of 
these  local  courts  was  effectually  secured. 


Connection 
between 
central  and 
local  courts. 


Norman  A dministration. 


241 


Besides  these  popular  courts,  there  existed  also  the 
Manorial  courts,  the  Forest  courts,  and  the  Courts  of  the 
enfranchised  boroughs. 

The  manor  was  nothing  more  than  the  ancient  town¬ 
ship  which  had  now  fallen  to  a  feudal  lord.  They  had 
as  before  shown,  (p.  155),  virtually  existed  in  Anglo- 
Saxon  times,  in  the  case  of  those  thanes  who  had 
gained  independent  rights  of  jurisdiction 
conveyed  the  grants  of  sac  and  soc.  In  Nor-  lhe  manor' 
man  times  they  were  so  much  increased  that  nearly  the 
whole  of  England  was  divided  into  manors,  either  of  the 
king  or  belonging  to  some  lord,  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  enfranchised  boroughs. 


These  manors  would  be  thus  divided:  part  the  lord 
would  keep  for  his  own  use  under  the  name 
of  the  demesne;  the  rest  would  be  granted  Divisions  of 
out  to  freehold  tenants  on  varying  terms  of 
tenure,  or  would  form  the  waste  over  which  the  lord 
retained  the  right  of  sporting,  while  the  tenants  of  the 
manor  might  there  feed  their  cattle  or  cut  their  turf  and 
peat.  Of  the  demesne  again  part  was  retained  in  the 
actual  occupation  of  the  lord  :  his  park  and  farm,  which 
was  termed  the  demesne  proper.  On  the  rest  his  vil¬ 
leins  would  be  settled.  Bound  to  the  soil,  they  might 
not  leave  it,  and  in  return  for  their  small  holdings  they 
had  to  till  the  demesne  proper.  If  the  land  were  sold 
they  passed  with  it. 

In  these  manors  the  old  town  reeve  had  given  up  his 
place  to  the  steward  of  the  lord,  but  in  other  respects  the 
procedure  was  the  same  as  in  the  popular  courts.  The 
rights  of  jurisdiction  varied  according  to  the  terms  of 
grant.  All  had  their  Court-baron,  represent¬ 
ing  the  Gemot  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  township,  courts. 
in  which  by-laws  were  passed  and  local 


242 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


CH.  XVII. 


business  transacted ;  and  all  their  Customary  court  for 
the  business  of  the  villeinage.  In  these  cases  the  lords 
were  not  exempt  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Hundred 
court.  Others  would  have  by  grant  Courts  leet  for 
criminal  purposes,  and  others  a  right  to  hold  views  of 
frank-pledge,  as  they  were  called,  when  the  manor  would 
be  free  from  the  Courts  leet  and  tourn  of  the  sheriff 
respectively. 

In  some  great  baronial  jurisdictions,  which  included 
almost  the  whole  shire,  the  lords  enjoyed  entire  inde¬ 
pendence  of  the  sheriff  and  the  Shire  court,  and  the 
suitors  to  their  courts  exemption  from  all  attendance  at 
the  popular  courts.  The  number  of  these  greater  juris¬ 
dictions,  which  were  hereditary,  always  had  a  tendency 
to  increase,  and  were  dangerous  not  only  as  decreasing 
the  profits  of  the  popular  courts  and  the  crown,  but  as 
serving  as  a  basis  for  baronial  tyranny  in  such  times  as 
those  of  Stephen.  There  was  no  means  of  checking 
them  except  by  increasing  the  central  power,  and  it  was 
not  till  the  reign  of  Henry  II.  that  they  were  compelled  to 
admit  the  Justices  of  Eyre  to  exercise  jurisdiction  in  them. 

There  was  no  privilege  to  which  the  Norman  kings 
clung  so  closely,  or  which  caused  so  much  misery  and 
discontent,  as  their  exclusive  right  of  enjoy- 
Forest  courts.  ;ng  the  sport  in  the  royal  forests.  William 
had  desolated  the  New  Forest  with  cold-blooded  indif¬ 
ference,  and  the  curse  had  been  visited  on  his  family. 
Rufus  had  much  increased  the  forests.  Even  Henry 
had  refused  to  part  with  any  when  he  had  to  appeal  to 
the  people  in  his  charter,  and  added  more  to  their 
number.  At  a  somewhat  later  date  it  was  computed 
that  there  were  67  forests,  besides  30  chases  and  781 
parks.  Over  these  the  jurisdiction  was  vested  in  the 
Forest  courts.  Here  a  distinct  system  of  law  prevailed 


Norman  Administration. 


243 


They  were  ruled  by  royal  officials,  independent  of  the 
ordinary  judges  of  the  popular  courts  and  Curia  Regis, 
not  bound  by  the  common  law,  and  irresponsible  except 
to  the  king.  Their  laws  and  customs  were  their  own, 
and  variable,  until  Henry  II.  issued  the  first  Forest 
code,  even  then  marked  by  such  severity  that  it  is  said 
the  punishment  for  breach  of  forest  law  was  heavier  than 
for  heresy.  Nothing  proves  more  strongly  the  arbitrary 
rule  of  the  Norman  kings,  or  their  selfishness,  than  the 
stubborness  with  which  they  clung  to  their  forests  and 
Forest  courts. 

In  Anglo-Saxon  times  some  of  the  more  fortunate 
boroughs  had  gained  an  exemption  from  the  Hundred 
court,  and  enjoyed  their  own  rights  of  juris¬ 
diction  in  their  ward  and  borough  motes,  ^borough 
with  an  organization  similar  to  that  of  the 
popular  courts.  They  still,  however,  remained  subject  to 
the  Shire  court,  and  the  sheriff  collected  from  them  the 
royal  dues.  By  the  Norman  Conquest  they  fell  into  the 
demesne  of  some  great  lord  or  of  the  king,  and  the  status 
of  citizens  exactly  corresponded  with  that  of  the  inhabi¬ 
tants  of  the  rural  districts,  those  who  held  property 
being  termed  “burgage”  tenants,  corresponding  to  the 
socage”  tenants,  and  the  lower  class  of  citizens  to  the 
“  villeins  ”  of  the  rural  manor.  For  any  further  advance 
they  now  had  to  look  to  the  grant  of  the  lord  or  king  in 
whose  demesne  they  lay.  Those  who  were  not  rich  enough 
to  buy  these  privileges,  or  were  on  the  demesnes  of  some 
lord  who  had  not  the  power  of  granting  these  immunities, 
remained  much  in  the  condition  in  which  the  Norman 
Conquest  found  them,  and  survive  to  the  present  day  in 
our  market  towns,  with  an  humble  machinery  of  police 
and  magistracy  in  connection  with  their  markets.  The 
more  privileged  gained  their  charters  from  king  or  lord. 


244 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


CH.  XV]  I. 


Having  won  independent  jurisdiction,  the  next  step  was 
to  procure  an  independent  administration.  This,  as  was 
so  often  the  case  in  Norman  times,  first  took  the  form  of 
a  fiscal  question.  Hitherto  the  sheriff  had  himself  com¬ 
pounded  for  the  dues  of  the  boroughs  in  the  farm  of  his 
county,  ar.d  levied  the  dues  upon  the  town  himself,  and 
to  his  own  profit.  Probably  in  many  cases  more  was 
exacted  than  was  legal ;  but  the  towns  had  no  remedy. 
It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  they  should  wish  to  com¬ 
pound  directly  with  the  king  or  lord,  and  thus  be  freed 
from  the  common  valuation  of  the  shire.  This  was  done 
by  obtaining  charters,  by  which  the  burghers  themselves 
rented  the  borough  dues,  paying  to  the  king  or  lord  the 
rent  of  the  borough  (firma  burgi),  and  collecting  it  them¬ 
selves  from  the  citizens.  Thus  they  were  freed  from  the 
exactions  of  the  sheriff,  and  changed  their  varying  dues 
into  a  fixed  and  certain  rent.  The  grant  of  the  ferm 
implied  an  emancipation  from  “villein”  services;  and, 
since  the  ferm  was  generally  granted  to  the  ward  mote 
of  the  town,  all  members  of  that  court,  holders  of  land  or 
houses  within  the  borough,  henceforth  held  their  land  on 
free  “  burgage  ’’  tenure.  This,  with  a  few  other  privileges, 
was  all  that  was  gained  in  Norman  times. 

Side  by  side  with  the  growth  of  the  boroughs,  the 
system  of  guilds  had  arisen.  For  the  orign  of  these  we 
must  look  to  Anglo-Saxon  times.  The  dis¬ 
tinguishing  feature  of  early  Teutonic  society 
lay  in  its  strong  spirit  of  local  organization,  in  itself  pro¬ 
bably  a  remains  of  the  old  family  tie.  As  this  family  tie 
became  weakened,  they  seem  to  have  sought  for  some 
other  personal  bond,  founded  on  the  analogy  of  the  fa¬ 
mily,  which  might  take  its  place.  Hence  the  rise  of  guilds 
which  appear  universally  in  Western  Europe,  taking  va¬ 
rious  forms,  of  which  the  following  are  the  most  important. 


Norman  Administration. 


245 


Religious  or  social  guilds. — These  were  probably  the 
earliest,  and  resorted  to  for  some  religious  purpose,  such 
as  prayers  for  quick  and  dead,  burial  of  their 

r  J  1  .  Religious 

dead,  representation  of  miracle  plays,  alms,  or  social 

and  good  works.  Others  again  formed  Frith1 

friendly  societies  for  mutual  help  and  pro-  guilds, 

tection.  “  If  one  misdo,”  runs  one  of  their  by-laws,  “  let 
all  bear  it:  let  all  share  the  same  lot.”  Others,  under 
the  name  of  Frith  guilds,  formed  assurance  companies 
against  loss  or  theft,  to  give  compensation  when  any 
member  had  suffered,  and  to  avenge  all  insults  as  com¬ 
mon  ones.  It  is  to  these  Frith  guilds  that  we  probably 
owe  the  idea  which  afterwards  led  to  the  system  of  frank¬ 
pledge.  At  times  all  these  objects  would  be  united  in 
one  guild.  The  existence  of  such  associations  as  these, 
and  their  rules  of  membership,  speak  highly  for  the 
peace  and  order-loving  character  of  the  people  ;  and  as 
they  survived  the  Norman  Conquest,  they  affected  our 
after  history.  No  rebel  or  man  of  bad  fame  might  be 
enrolled  a  member,  and  such  offences  worked  instant 
forfeiture;  while  a  rule  from  a  guild  of  later  date  speaks 
highly  for  their  moral  and  industrial  influence  :  “  If  any 
man  fall  poor  from  using  to  lie  long  in  bed,  and  at  rising 
off  his  bed  will  not  work  but  go  to  the  tavern,  wine,  ale, 
wrestling,  and  in  this  maner  falleth  poor,  that  man  shall 
never  have  help  or  good  of  the  companie  neither  in 
life  or  death,  but  shall  be  put  out  of  the  companie.” 

As  trade  increased,  the  same  spirit  of  association  led 
to  the  rise  of  merchant  and  craft  guilds.  Of 
these  the  merchant  guilds  probably  existed  gJuids.3"* 
in  some  few  cases  before  the  Conquest,  but 
rapidly  increased  during  the  Norman  period.  They 
were  associations  of  merchants  uniting  for  purposes  of 
mutual  assistance  in  trade.  They  gained  by  charters 


246 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


CH.  XVII. 


the  monopoly  of  trade,  and  then  gradually  obtained  the 
virtual  government  of  the  towns  by  the  following  means. 
The  guild,  including  as  it  did  all  the  important  men  of 
the  town,  would  necessarily  be  members  of  the  borough 
courts ;  thus  the  members  of  the  guild  and  the  govern¬ 
ing  body  of  the  town  would  be  composed  of  the  same 
persons,  and  guild  law  would  tend  to  become 
town  law.  But  further,  in  some  cases  the 
merchant  guilds  seem  themselves  to  have 
purchased  the  “  firma  burgi,"  and  in  virtue 
of  this  would  have  the  right  of  assessing  the  contributions 
upon  the  citizens.  Thus  membership  in  a  merchant 
guild  would  be  indispensable  for  the  full  status  of  a 
burgher,  who  thereby  gained  a  stronger  spirit  of  co¬ 
operative  union.  Still  the  governing  body  of  the  town 
and  the  guild  were  not  as  yet  identical.  Their  organiza¬ 
tion  was  separate,  and  the  influence  of  the  guild  was 
indirect  rather  than  actual  or  avowed. 

Beneath  these  merchant  guilds,  the  lower  craft  guilds, 
or  associations  of  craftsmen,  had  begun  to  arise  ;  but  for 
their  future  development,  and  the  conse- 
Guilds  quent  struggle  between  them  and  the  mer¬ 

chant  guilds  for  the  municipal  government, 
we  have  to  wait  for  a  later  date. 

The  towns  then  in  Norman  times  had  gained  an  inde¬ 
pendent  jurisdiction,  some  independence  of  administra¬ 
tion  in  fiscal  matters,  and  various  privileges. 
Condition  of  j$u(;  they  were  still  subject  to  the  Shire 

towns  in  J  J 

Norman  court ;  they  were  in  no  sense  a  corporate 
unity,  as  they  subsequently  became,  and 
their  organization  was  still  that  of  the  rural  hundreds  and 
townships. 

The  condition  of  London  was,  indeed,  somewhat  more 
advanced.  By  the  charter  of  Henry  I.  it  received  the 


Merchant 
guilds  pur¬ 
chase  the 
“  firma 
burgi.’* 


Norman  Administration. 


247 


“  ferm  ”  of  the  whole  county  of  Middlesex, 
with  the  right  of  appointing  the  sheriff.  The 
citizens  were  freed  from  all  jurisdiction  of  any  other 
Shire  court,  and  from  the  obligation  of  trial  by  combat, 
together  with  other  privileges  and  immunities.  They 
had  their  folk-moot,  answering  to  the  Shire  court  else¬ 
where  :  their  ward-mote,  corresponding  to  the  rural 
Hundred  courts;  and  their  “  hustings  court,’’  or  weekly 
meeting  of  the  citizens  in  common.  Still  even  London, 
though  far  in  advance  of  any  other  towns  had  no  muni¬ 
cipality  as  yet.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  civic  shire,  as  the  other 
towns  were  civic  hundreds  ;  and  under  their  folk-moot, 
or  Shire  court,  the  several  townships,  parishes,  and 
manors  of  which  it  was  composed,  retained  their  sepa¬ 
rate  jurisdiction  and  organization. 

The  military  system  of  the  Norman  kings  was  three¬ 
fold. 

(1)  The  Anglo-Saxon  organization  of  the  militia  was 
retained.  By  this,  every  man  was  bound  to 

serve  the  king  on  foot  in  times  of  danger.  system? 
They  were  marshalled  under  the  sheriff  of  Mllltla- 
each  shire,  and  each  man  received  the  sum  of  105.  from 
his  county  to  meet  the  expenses  of  his  service. 

(2)  To  this  the  Normans  added  the  feudal  levy,  by 
which  every  tenant  by  knight  service  had 

to  furnish  one  fully  armed  horseman  for  Feudal 

J  levy. 

forty  days  in  the  year,  when  summoned  by 
the  king,  either  on  home  or  foreign  service. 

The  baron  led  his  own  knights,  and  the  host  was 
marshalled  by  the  Constable  and  Marshal ;  those  knights 
who  held  immediately  of  the  crown  appearing  with  the 
militia  under  the  sheriff. 

(3)  These  levies  were  further  supplemented  in  time  of 
war  by  foreign  mercenaries  of  footmen  and  archers. 


CH.  XVII. 


248 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


Mercenaries. 


The 

National 

Council. 


Thus  William  I.  hired  mercenaries  to  resist  the  inva¬ 
sion  of  Canute  of  Denmark  in  1085 ;  and 
Stephen's  employment  of  Flemish  and  Bre¬ 
ton  mercenaries  at  the  outbreak  of  the  civil  war,  alienated 
many  of  his  partisans. 

We  have  spoken  of  the  probable  relation  which  the 
Curia  Regis  held  to  the  Commune  Concilium,  or  national 
council. 

This  national  council  is  to  be  considered 
as  a  continuation  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Wit- 
enagemot,  under  the  character  of  a  feudal 

court. 

Theoretically,  all  freeholders  holding  in  chief  of  the 
crown  were  members,  and  on  a  few  great  occasions,  as 
at  the  Council  of  Salisbury,  1085,  such  general  musters 
would  be  made.  But  in  those  days,  attendance  at  the 
royal  council  was  looked  upon  as  a  burden  rather  than  a 
privilege ;  and  its  ordinary  members  would  accordingly 
be  confined  to  the  archbishops,  the  bishops,  abbots, 
earls,  barons,  and  knights ;  and  of  these 
probably  only  a  limited  number  of  the  more 
important  would  ordinarily  appear. 

The  abbots  and  friars  sat  in  virtue  of 
their  holding  a  barony  of  the  king,  the 
archbishops  and  bishops  as  being  besides  the  chief  ad¬ 
visers  of  the  crown. 

The  earls,  originally  the  successors  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
earls,  whose  numbers,  at  first  small,  were  increased  in 
the  reigns  of  Henry  I.  and  Stephen,  gained 
their  dignity  ;by  special  investiture  of  the 
sword  of  their  country  by  the  king.  The  proceeds  of 
jurisdiction  they  shared  with  the  sheriff,  receiving  a 
third  of  the  fines  arising  in  the  Shire  courts. 

The  barons  were  the  successors  of  the  king’s  thanes 


Members  of 

the  National 

Council. 

Archbishops, 

Bishops, 

Abbots. 


Earls. 


Norman  A dministration. 


249 


Barons. 


Knights. 


of  Anglo-Saxon  times.  They  held  in  chief  of  the  king, 
and  enjoyed  a  dignity  sometimes  personal,  sometimes 
territorial.  The  class  was  composed  of  many  grades, 
varying  according  to  their  personal  qualifi¬ 
cations,  official  duties,  and  extent  of  pro¬ 
perty. 

The  knights,  representing  the  old  thanes,  were  really 
the  lesser  barons,  in  fact  the  whole  class  of 
tenants  by  knight  service. 

The  powers  of  the  council  thus  formed,  theoretically 
extended  to  legislation  and  taxation.  The  king  ac¬ 
knowledged  “  its  counsel  and  consent”  in  _  , 

the  former,  and  in  the  latter  probably  laid  the  Council 

.  -  .  c  .  .  .  .  theoretical 

before  it  any  plan  for  increasing  the  existing  rather  than 
taxes.  But,  practically,  the  king  was  abso-  practical, 
lute,  and  its  counsel  and  consent  a  mere  form. 

The  council,  however,  still  enjoyed  certain  powers. 
These  courts  were  held  annually  on  the  festivals  of 
Easter,  Pentecost,  and  Christmas,  at  the  towns  of  Win¬ 
chester,  Gloucester,  and  Westminster,  respectively,  when 
the  king  wore  his  crown  before  his  subjects. 

It  formed  a  court  of  judicature  for  trying  peers,  as  in 
the  case  of  Waltheof,  in  the  reign  of  William  I.,  and  of 
Robert  of  Belesme  in  that  of  Henry  I. 

Here  also  the  following  business  was  transacted.  The 
bishops  were  nominated,  until  Henry  I.  granted  the  right 
of  free  election  to  the  chapters ;  here  the  earldoms  and 
other  dignities  would  be  conferred ;  questions  of  policy 
discussed  and  ecclesiastical  canons  ratified,  though  the 
archbishops  often  held  an  ecclesiastical  council  at  the 
same  time,  where  the  canons  themselves  would  be  pre¬ 
pared. 

Even  in  these  matters  the  council  probably  did  little 
more  than  give  its  formal  assent,  and  the  only  point  in 


250 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


CH.  XVII. 


which  its  authority  was  practically  exercised  was  in  the 
election  of  the  king.  On  those  occasions  the  royal 
authority  was  in  abeyance  ;  the  nation  resumed  its  rights, 
only  to  lose  them  again  as  soon  as  they  had  elected  their 
future  master. 

Thus  the  Norman  king  enjoyed  an  authority,  confined 
„  .  ,  indeed  within  certain  theoretical  limits,  but 

Practical 

responsi-  practically  irresponsible,  and  the  govern- 
Norman  the  ment  might  be  inaptly  described  as  a  despo- 
king-  tism  tempered  by  the  elective  principle. 

Of  the  administration  of  Normandy  during  this,  as  in 
the  earlier  period,  we  have  but  scanty  evidence.  All 
the  authorities,  of  which  the  Grand  Coutu- 

Administra-  .  . 

tionof  mier  of  Normandy  is  the  most  important, 

Normandy.  are  jater  compilation :  and  of  original 
charters,  rolls,  or  other  documents,  there  is  a  curious 
dearth. 

We  may  be  sure,  however,  that  there  was  a  close  con¬ 
nection  between  England  and  Normandy  at  this  date; 
though,  probably  owing  to  the  disturbed  condition  of  the 
duchy,  England  was  considerably  in  advance. 

We  have  noticed  before  the  analogies  between  the 
Curia  Regis  and  Exchequer  of  England  and  the  Curia 
Ducis  and  Exchequer  of  Normandy. 

No  doubt  England  here  borrowed  largely,  especially 
in  the  forms  of  procedure,  from  her  foreign  sister.  But 
so  had  she  done  from  Anglo-Saxon  institutions,  and  the 
debt  of  Normandy  to  England  was  probably  as  great. 

Of  the  municipal  life  in  Normandy  again  we  know 
but  little.  We  hear  of  sworn  communes,  and  La  Mans 
had  wrested  privileges  from  William  as  early 
Municipal  as  10y^  (p  1 85).  But  in  common  with  the 
rest  of  France,  the  object  of  municipal  free¬ 
dom  in  Normandy  was  more  distinctly  political  than  in 


Norman  Administration. 


25i 


England,  and  a  comparison  of  the  few  charters  which 
remain  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  in  this  as  in  other 


matters  the  advantage  lay  with  England. 


In  conclusion,  the  question  how  far  England  and 


Normandy  borrowed  each  from  the  other 
will  best  be  answered  if  we  remember  that 
it  wasaperiod  of  transition  and  of  growth  in 
both  countries,  and  that  the  administrative 


Mutual  in¬ 
fluence  of 
the  two 
countries. 


systems  of  each  country  grew  together. 


GENEALOGICAL  TABLES 


Genealogical  Tables. 


*54 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


X 

5 


II 

X 


(i)  Sprota,  a - William  Longsword=(2)  Leutgarda,*  d.  of  Herbert  II. 

Breton.  (927-942).  of  Vermandois. 


Genealogical  Tables. 


255 


IU3 

o 

TJ  </,  *_, 

«  C 
3'o 
k-5  3  o-2 

Swum 


n  e.2 
—  u  o 

•oaM 

-<  S*S 


V  C  W 
0.0  ° 
OUM 


2  >» o  >* 

.12  «  ^  c 

-3£  cE 

^  O  3  - 

«  °  C 
EOOW 


2  S 

Ctf  'O 
«  3 

"HE 


_«S-5  2 


“£Wh 


VO 
4>  N 

A  o 

'O  vo 

t  o\ 

2  on 


CO  « 


o'  o 


hh  aT_2  *d  ° 


O  N  ^  O  ,C  E 

■-  o  tJ-O  O  2 
(A  £,  xi  «;  p$  c* 


H 

v  3 

WM 

—  ll*S 

«  o 

o  *J 

a  a 

<2 


19 


■S’S 

e- 

-§  g» 

3y 


c—  5 

-  rt  *-•  rt 

ts  c  a 

c  *3  'e: 

<3<«.s 


6  3 


A  . 

O 


a  rv 


C  M 

<U  ' — 

EG  II 


«  o 

-E  7 


.mi  £ 

>, »5  5 

■g|jgS 

M  O  »■* 

OS- 
3  oU 


^3-0  bfl  || 


.< 

£  O 

V  — 

a  c 
E  a 

r  i  3 

W(J 

>  >> 


u 

KO  _• 


•=  K 


'z< 

'd  3  ' 

ri  ►>  1 
2^  ‘ 
'Z~J. 


— s 


a  .2 


_U  o  « 

E-dd 

.2  3  3s 


»> 

9J  O 

2 'So 

■a  .2!  « 

rt  u  V3 

H5 

«>U  W 

O  ** 


cr.  - 


be  > 


ri«  go 

in'**  o  . 

.  o 

Q.  •  ^ 

£-5 

3  2  c  £ 
oi  rt  3  T3 

.'gO  cl 

O  UtjW 

se  «•* 

“  U  1) 

^•O  rt  "E 

i-S  a  i 

2  S3  *  = 

•1  E  S£ 

S  5 

Q“  g1 3 
>."S? 

jo  i.  a 


EaC 


a$3lG3  .£< 


III. 

Dukes  of  Paris  and  Kings  of 

Robert  the  Strong  (ob.  866). 


256  The  Normans  in  Europe. 


Constance=Bohemond  Louis  VI.  (1108-1137). 

of  Antioch 


IV. 

Vermandois  and  Blois. 

Herbert  I.  of  Vermandois,  descended  from  Charles  the  Great 


Genealogical  Tables. 


257 


o —  o 

5  5 


*.0 

rt  • 
•£« 
V 
« 


SI 


II  r°>  2 
II  CJ  v 


<3^ 

E'o 

< 


E  ■ 

rt 


•5  3 


. 

I  §  I 

II  cj  2 

rt  .tl 

“-d  _r  1- 

Sl£ 

o 


'D  CJ 


'v-d  O 

3^7, 


c  «J 

5  c 

O  bJO 

— CJ  rt 
.  cu 
frS 

kS 


<a  2 

8.3 


Steph  en, 

*cru  v  1  .  ,  _  ,  „  King  of  England. 

*  she  subsequently  married  Robert  I.  of  France.  See  Table  V. 


Counts  of  Flanders. 

Baldwin  I.,  Bras  de  Fer  =  Judith,  d.  of  Charles  the  Bald. 
(858-879). 


258 


The  Normans  in  Europe. 


*  She  had  been  betrothed  to  Richard  III.,  Duke  of  Normandy.  Sec  Table  IV. 


lngelger  870?). 


Genealogical  Tables. 


259 


T  •s 


S  XJ 
3  3 
O  rt 


£  « 
O  J3 


O  00 


H~m-=  S_ 


>»  G 

4;  O  • 
.u  tO 

"~fc 

*C  W 
0 

00 

Sg 

-ST  A 

te  g 

o 

<5 


jf 

>A 


“o  g. 

c  =>" 

jun 


j=  6 


—  •_! 

4>  n, 

E  £  > 

•o  0  § 

3'!* 
3  5 
s 


U)  ^ 


W  ? 


^  3 
..  o 

^'sJ 


c3  X) 

5°. 


►S3 


"0  U 

6 

^0,2 

c/5  £=i 


£  § 

tw 


INDEX 


ANJ  , 

ABBOTS,  members  of  Commune  I 
Concilium,  249 

Adelais  of  Louvain,  second  wife  of  ’ 
Henry  I.,  225 

Adeliza,  daughter  of  Richard  the 
Good,  wife  of  Stephen  of  Blois,  77 
Alan  of  Brittany,  see  Brittany 
Alengon  revolts  against  Duke  Wil¬ 
liam,  95 

Alfred,  his  wars  against  the  Danes, 
21 

Alice,  sister  of  Richard  III  ,  wife  of 
Renaud  of  Burgundy,  93 
Allodial  property,  149 
Alnwick,  Malcolm  01  Scotland  slain 
at,  232 

Amalfi,  Republic  of,  81  ;  capital  of 
Norman  kingdom  of  Apulia,  81  ;  1 
trade  of,  84 

Ambrieres,  occup’ed  by  Duke  Wil-  j 
liam,  129 

Anacletin,  Pope,  confers  title  of  king 
on  Roger  II.  of  Sicily,  85 
Anglesea  conquered  by  Henry  II., 
232 

Anglo  Saxon  institutions,  sketch  of 
149,  *59  weakness  and  strength  j 
of,  1 61  ;  character,  166 
Anjou,  sketch  of  history  of,  128 
— Ingelger,  First  Count,  128. 

— Fulk  Nerra  humbles  Brittany 
and  Blois,  seizes  Saumur,  con¬ 
quers  Touraine,  128  ;  supports 
Rob;rt  against  Henry  I.,  88,  129; 
— Geoffrey  Martel  seizes  Tours, 
120  ;  seizes  Alencjon  against  Duke 
Wili  am,  96  ;  dispute  about  Maine, 
I20;  joins  Henry  I.  against  Duke 
William,  129;  defeated  at  Vara- 
ville,  130  ;  hi s  dominions  divided 
between  Geoffrey  and  Fulk  Re¬ 
chin,  131 


All 

Anjou,  Fulk  Rechin  occupies  Maine 
against  William  I.,  agrees  to 
treaty  of  Blancheland,  186 
— Fulk  V.  occupies  Maine  against 
Henry  I.,  221  ;  his  daughter  mar¬ 
ries  Prince  William,  222  ;  supports 
William  Clito,  223 ;  marries  heir¬ 
ess  of  Jerusalem,  and  accepts 
crown  of,  224. 

— Geoffrey  IV.  of,  son  of  Fulk,  mar¬ 
ries  Matilda,  daughter  of  Henry 
I.,  225 

Anselm  at  Bee,  195;  made  archbishop, 
his  character  contrasted  with  that 
of  Lanfranc,  196;  quarrel  with  Ru¬ 
fus,  198 ;  appeals  to  Rome  anl 
leaves  England,  199  ;  recalled  by 
Henry  I.,  214;  supports  H.nry, 
215  ;  quarrel  with  Henry  concern¬ 
ing  investitures, 218;  reconciliation, 
219;  enforces  celibacy  of  clergy,  221 
Antioch,  principality  of,  under  Bohe- 
mond,  208 

Apulia  under  the  Normans.  81,232 
Aquitaine,  40;  D  ike  of,  joins  rebels 
against  Duke  William,  127 
Archbishops,  members  of  Commune 
Concilium,  248 
Arles,  kingdom  of,  39 
Arnulfi,  Emperor,  38 
j  — of  Flanders  marries  daughter  of 
Herbert  II.  of  Vermandois.  50; 
plots  the  murder  of  William  Long- 
Sword,  50 

Arundel,  castle  of,  reduced  by  Henry 
I.,  216 

Athelstan  protects  his  son-in-law 
Louis  d’Outre-mer,  46 
Aversa,  settlement  of  Normans  at,  80 
Azzo,  Marquis  of  Este,  occupies 
Maine,  184 


261 


262 


Index. 


BLO  j 

BALDWIN,  Counts  of  Flanders, 
see  Flanders 

— brother  of  Godfrey  of  Bouillon  at 
Edessa,  208 

• — of  Hainault,  a  leader  in  first  cru¬ 
sade,  205 

Barons,  members  of  Commune  Con¬ 
cilium,  249 

Bee,  founded  by  Herluin,  112  ;  Lan- 
franc,  prior  of,  113  ;  Anselm,  abbot 
of,  197 

Belesme,  Ivo  de,  54 
—William  Talvas  de,  curses  William 
when  a  babe,  87 ;  rebels  against 
Robert  the  Magnificent,  87  ;  re¬ 
bels  against  Duke  William,  94; 
stirs  up  men  of  Alencon,  105 
—Robert  of,  Earl  of  Shrews¬ 
bury  and  Count  of  Alencon,  joins 
Robert  against  Willi  tm  1.,  186; 
against  William  Rufus,  192; 
against  Henry  I.,  213;  driven 
from  England,  214;  cruelty  in 
Normandy,  215;  taken  prisoner, 
215;  su.ceeded  by  William  Talvas, 
216 

— William  Talvas,  Count  of  Alen¬ 
con,  216 

Benedictines  in  Normandy,  111 
Beneficiary  system,  97 
Berenga  ius,  controversy  with  Lan-  1 
franc  on  Eucharist,  114 
Berenger  of  Brittany,  see  Brittany 
Bernard  the  Dane,  54 
Bessin  granted  by  Charles  the  Sim¬ 
ple  to  Ro'.lo,  42 ;  rebels  against  ; 
William  Longsword,  46 ;  rebels 
against  Duke  William,  94 
Bigod,  Roger,  supports  Robert 
against  William  II.,  192;  sup-  1 
ports  Henry  I.,  214 
Bishops  officers  of  the  Shire  Court, 
150;  removed  by  William  to  the 
Ecclesiastical  Court,  181 ;  their 
power  increased,  181 ;  members  of 
Commune  Concilium,  248 
— Anglo-Saxon  bishops  deprived  of 
their  Sees  by  William  I.,  180 
— Norman,  superiority  of,  180 
Blanchelande.  Treaty  of.  184 
Blois,  Eudes  II.  of,  see  Eudes. 

— Stephen,  see  Stephen. 

Blois.  Theobald  I.  of,  marries  Leut- 
garda,  widow  of  William  Long¬ 
sword,  54 

■ — Theobald  III.  of,  rebels  against 
Duke  William,  127 ;  defeated  by 


BUR 

Fulk  Nerra,  129;  defeats  Louis 
VI.,  222 

Boc-land,  the,  149 

Bohemond,  Prince  of  Tarento,  a 
le  <der  in  the  First  Crusade,  a  type 
of  Crusaders,  207  ;  at  Antioch,  208 
Boroughs,  Anglo-Saxon,  156;  growth 
of,  in  Norman  times,  243 ;  courts, 
243- 

Boso,  of  Provence,  39 
Bouillon,  see  Godfrey 
Boulogne,  Eustace,  Count  of,  bro¬ 
ther-in-law  of  Edward  the  Con¬ 
fessor,  quarrels  with  Godwine,  120; 
rebels  against  William  I.,  145 
—  son  of  former,  supports  Robert 
against  William  II.,  .19 2;  father- 
in-law  of  King  Stephen,  205 
Brenneville,  battle  of,  223 
Breteuil,  Roger,  Earl  of  Hereford, 
son  of  Fitz-Osb^rn,  rebels  against 
William,  185 

— William  of,  brother  of  Roger, 
joins  Robert  against  William  I., 
186;  against  Henry  I.,  212 
Bridgnorih,  Castle  of,  reduced  by 
Henry  I.,  215 

Brittany,  practical  independence  of, 
under  Charles  the  Simple,  39-45 ; 
overlordship  of,  granted  to  Rollo, 

36 

— Alan  and  Berenger  of,  revolt 
against  William  Longsword,  47 
— Geoffrey,  Count  of  Rennes,  gains 
supremacy  over  Brittany,  70  ;  his 
marriage  alliances  with  Richard 
the  Good,  77 

— Alan  and  Odo,  sons  of  Geoffrey, 
wards  of  Richard  the  Good,  77 
— Alan  rebels  against  Robert  the 
Magnificent,  88 :  guardian  of 
Duke  William,  92 

— Conan  II.,  son  of  Alan  of,  rebels 
against  William,  reduced,  134 ; 
defeated  by  Fulk  Nerra,  129 
— Alan  II,  of,  at  Hastings,  140 
— Conan  III.  of,  marries  illegitimate 
daughter  of  Henry  I.,  223 
— Henry  l.'s  overlordship  defiantly 
recognised,  223,  224 
— lost  to  England  under  John,  224 
— Burgage  Tenants,  243 
Burgundy,  Cisjurane  and  Trans- 
jurane,  39 

— County  of,  under  Otho  William, 
39,  76 ;  Renaud  of,  marries  Alice, 
1  daughter  of  Richard  the  Good,  77 ; 


Index. 


263 


CHA  1 

Guy,  Count  of,  rebels  against  Duke  ' 
William,  93 

—Duchy  of  under  Richard  the  • 
Justiciar,  39 ;  rebels  again  t 
Charles  the  Simple,  40  ;  Rudolf  of. 
King  of  West  Franks,  brother-in- 
law  of  Hugh  the  Great,  42-45  ; 
sovereignty  over,  granted  to  Hugh 
the  Great,  58 ;  under  Henry 
Eudes,  brother  of  Hugh  Capet,  76; 
Otho  William  claims  it,  76  ;  Ro¬ 
bert, brother  of  Henry  I.  of  France, 
Duke  of,  88 


CAEN  sacked  by  Henry  I.  of 
France,  130;  Treaty  of,  be¬ 
tween  William  II.  and  Robert,  193  1 
Caipha,  Tancred  at,  207 
Cannse, defeat  of  Greeks  by  Normans 
at,  81 

Canterbury,  supremacy  over  York 
asserted,  180;  over  Wales,  217; 
See  of,  kept  vacat  t  by  William 
Rufus,  191 

Canute  conquers  England,  and  mar¬ 
ries  Emma,  widow  of  Ethelred, 
79,116;  his  dealings  with  Robert 
the  Magnificent,  91  ;  his  northern 
empire,  115  ;  his  policy,  91  ;  his 
earldoms,  118 

• — of  Denmark  marries  daughter  of 
Robert  de  Frison,  Count  of  Flan¬ 
ders,  187 ;  threatens  an  invasion 
of  England,  his  death,  187 
Cardiff,  Robert  of  Normandy  impri¬ 
soned  at,  217 

Carlisle,  quarrel  between  William 
Rufus  and  Malcolm  about,  202  ; 
See  of,  founded  by  Henry  I.,  220 
Castle,  a  feudal,  described,  105 
Ceorls,  the,  148 ;  how  affected  by 
rise  of  thaneship,  153 
Chamberlain,  the,  234 
Chancellor,  the,  237 
Channel  Islands  granted  to  William 
Longsword,  47 ;  their  later  inde¬ 
pendence,  147 

Charles  the  Bald  grants  Paris  to 
Robert  the  Strong,  36 
—  the  Great,  fall  of  his  empire, 
31  ;  character  of  his  empire,  65 
Charles  III.,  dismemberment  of 
his  empire,  38 

— of  Lorraine  competitor  for  crown 
of  West  Franks,  63 
—the  Simple,  King  of  West  Franks, 


COU 

40  ;  grants  Normandy  to  Rollo, 
36;  imprisoned  by  Herbert  of 
Vermandois,  42  ;  dies,  42 
Chester  a  County  Palatine,  169 ; 

under  Hugh  Lupus,  169 
Chivalry,  102 

Church,  importance  of  the,  in  early 
times,  175 

— Anglo-Saxon,  condition  of,  at 
time  of  Norman  Conquest,  176; 
relation  of  to  State,  180;  policy 
of  William  I.  towards,  175-183 
— English,  Henry  I.’s  concilia¬ 
tion  of,  213;  supports  Henry  L, 

2I4 

Cinque  Ports,  143,  193 
Cistercians,  monasteries  in  England, 
221 

Citeaux,  monastery  of,  221 
Civitella,  battle  of,  84 
Clair-on- Epte,  treaty  of,  36 
Clergy,  married,  policy  of  Lanfranc 
to,  180;  of  Anselm,  220 
Clontarf,  battle  of,  25 
Clugny,  Hildebrand  at,  177 
]  Combat,  trial  by,  100,  240 
Comitatu  ,  the,  98 
Commendation,  c,8 
Communo  Concilium,  the,  248 
j  Compurgation,  152 
Conan  cf  Brittany,  see  Brittany 
Conrad  of  Franconia,  38,  41 
Consiable,  the,  235 
Constance,  widow  of  Robert  of 
France,  opposes  her  son,  Henry  I., 
88 

Constantinople,  relations  of,  with 
Russia,  29 

— Harrald  Hardrada  at,  31 
Cotentin,  the,  granted  by  William 
Longsword,  47  ;  Danish  settlers  in, 
50;  rebels  against  Duke  William, 
04;  bought  by  Henry  I.  of  Ro- 
I  Dcrt,  211 
Courts,  Baron,  242 
— Borough,  243 

— Ecclesiastical,  established  by 
William  I.,  181  ;  their  encroach¬ 
ments,  185 
— Feudal,  100 
—  Forest,  242 

Courts,  Hundred,  Anglo-Saxon, 
149 ;  maintained  by  William  I., 
162;  revived  by  Henry  I.,  226 
— Norman,  239,  leet,  226 
— Manor,  162,  242 

1  — Shire,  Anglo-Saxon,  150,  162,  226 


264 


Index. 


EDE 

Courts,  Shire,  Norman,  240 
'—Township,  150, 162 
Crusades,  causes  of,  203 
— First  Crusade,  character  and 
leaders  of,  204  ;  results  of,  208 
Cumberland  claimed  by  Scotland, 
201  ;  definitely  united  to  England, 
208 

Curfew  bell,  ordinance  of,  131 
Curia  Regis,  the,  under  William, 
162  ;  organized  by  Henry  1.,  227, 
237-239 

Customs  of  William  I.,  182 

Cyril  translates  Bible  into  Slavonic, 

3° 

ANEGELD,  the,  239 
Danes,  their  conquest  of  Eng¬ 
land,  20  ;  accept  Christianity,  21 ; 
invade  England  under  Swegen, 
79  ;  aid  rebels  against  William  I.  ; 
they  arc  bought  off,  145,  146  ;  lose 
command  of  the  sea,  188 
Davids,  St.,  Bishop  of,  claims  metro¬ 
politan  authority,  217 
Demesne,  the,  240 
Denmark,  condition  of,  in  eighth 
century,  2-7  ;  in  in  twelfth  century, 
232  ;  reforms  of  Canute  in,  188;  see 
Gorin,  Harald,  Blaatand,  Swegen, 
Canute,  Harthacnut 
Dermot  of  Leinster  protects  Harold, 
120 

Dives,  the,  river,  battle  on,  56 
Domesday  Survey,  164,  188 
Domfront  occupied  by  Duke  Wil¬ 
liam,  129 

— Henry  I.  at,  211 
Donald  Bean,  brother  of  Malcolm, 
claimant  for  Scottish  throne,  201 
Dorchester,  See  of,  removed  to  Lin¬ 
coln,  181 

Dreux  ceded  to  Eudes  of  Blois  by 
Richard  the  Good,  77 
Drogo,  81 ,  82 

Dublin,  Norwegian  settlements  in, 

24 

Durham,  a  County  Palatine,  168 

EADMER,  biographer  of  Anselm, 
196,  200 

Ealdorman,  the,  148-150  ;  succeeded 
by  the  Earl,  162 

Earls,  the  Norman,  162,  168,  248 
East  Anglia  under  Harold,  118; 

under  Gurth,  133 
Edessa,  Baldwin  at,  208 


ERI 

Edgar  the  iEtheling  heir  to  the  Eng¬ 
lish  throne,  134;  chosen  king,  143  ; 
rebels  against  William  I.,  145 ;  as¬ 
sists  Edgar  to  win  the  Scottish 
throne,  201 

— King  of  Scotland,  201 
— the  Peaceful,  king  of  all  Eng¬ 
land,  22 

Edric  the  Wild  rebels  against  Wil¬ 
liam  I.,  145 

Edward  the  Confessor  in  Normandy, 
117;  attempts  to  regain  his  crown, 
89,  1x7;  his  accession,  117;  intro¬ 
duces  Normans  into  England, 
1 17;  marries  daughter  ot  God- 
wine,  119;  quarrel  with  Godwine, 
120  ;  his  promise  to  William,  121  ; 
reconciliation  with  Godwine,  122  ; 
dies,  135  ;  laws  of,  confirmed  by 
Henry  I.,  213 

— the  iEtheling,  son  of  Edmund 
Ironside,  117,  121  ;  recalled  to 
England  and  dies,  133 
Edwin  and  Morcar,  grandsons  of 
Leofric,  Earls  of  Northumbria, 
135 defeated  by  Harald  Har- 
drada,  136;  refuses  to  aid  Harold, 
140  ;  selfish  policy,  142  ;  taken  to 
Normandy  by  William,  143;  rebel, 
145  ;  Edwin  dies,  146 
Egbert,  King  of  Wessex,  rules  all 
England,  20 

Eider,  boundary  of  Canute's  em¬ 
pire,  1 15 

Einar,  First  Jarl  of  Orkney,  23 
Eleanor,  daughter  of  Richard  the 
Good,  marries  Baldwin  IV.  of 
Flanders,  77 

Elizabeth,  daughter  of  Yaroslaf  of 
Russia, marriesHaraldHardrada, 31 
Ely.  Isle  of,  rises  against  William  I., 
166 

Ely,  See  of,  founded,  232 
Emma,  daughter  of  Hugh  the  Great, 
marries  Richard  the  Fearless,  57, 
70 ;  sister  of  Richard  the  Good, 
marries  Ethelred,  78 ;  marries 
Canute,  79 

England,  Danish  invasions  of,  20-22, 
78  ;  close  relations  with  Sicily,  206 
English,  William’s  policy  towards, 
160  ;  support  Henry  I.,  215  ;  joy 
of,  at  fall  ot  Belesme,  216 ;  condi¬ 
tion  of,  under  Henry  I.,  217 
Eorls,  the,  148  ;  superseded  by  the 
thanes,  153 

Eric,  King  of  Sweden,  establishes 


Index. 


265 


FLA 

his  authority  over,  12  ;  of  Norway, 
marries  Margaret  of  Scotland,  26 
Ethelred  the  Unready,  Danish  in¬ 
vasions  under,  78 ;  his  war  with 
Normandy,  78 ;  marries  Emma, 
sister  of  Richard  the  Good,  70,  78 ; 
takes  refuge  in  Normandy,  79 
Estrith,  sister  of  Canute,  marries 
Robert  the  Magnificent,  89 
Eudes  of  Paris,  King  of  West 
Franks,  30 

— II.  of  Blois,  wars  with  Paris 
and  Normandy,  76  ;  marries  sister 
of  Richard  the  Good,  gains  Dreux, 
77 ;  supports  Robert  against 
Henry  I.  of  France,  88 
Europe,  condition  of,  in  912,  32,  38, 
42  ;  in  1135,  232 

Eustace  of  Boulogne,  see  Boulogne 
Evreux  seized  by  Hugh  the  Great,  55 
Evroul,  St.,  Monastery  of,  205 
Exchequer,  Barons  of,  238  ;  the,  240 
Exeter  rebels  against  William  I.,  135 


FALAISE,  birthplace  of  Wil¬ 
liam  I.,  94 

Famine,  prevalence  of,  in  Europe, 
72 

Farm  of  the  shire,  238 

Faroe,  Norwegian  settlements  in,  27 

Fecamp,  111 

Feudal  system,  theories  as  to  origin 
of,  96;  described,  99,  109  ;  extent 
of,  103  ;  effect  on  society,  104,  109, 
176 

— in  Normandy.  109 
— how  far  existing  in  Anglo-Saxon 
times,  158 

— under  what  modifications  intro¬ 
duced  by  William  I.,  168 
— different  results  of,  in  England 
and  France,  171 

— levy  of  the  Norman  kings, 
247 

Firma  burgi,  244 

Fitzosbern,  William,  Earl  of  Here¬ 
ford,  138  ;  first  justiciary,  235  ; 
regent  in  England,  145 ;  see 
Hereford 

Flambard,  Ranulf,  rise  and  character 
of,  194 ;  his  ecclesiastical  policy, 
195  ;  consolidates  office  of  Curia 
Regis,  236;  imprisoned  by  Henry 
I.,  escapes  and  aids  Robert,  214 
Flanders,  Counts  of,  their  impor¬ 
tance,  123  ) 


GOD 

Flanders,  Baldwin  the  Bold,  40 

— Arnulf,  murders  William  Long- 
sword,  50 

— Baldwin  IV.,  supports  Charles  of 
Lorraine,  63  ;  marries  Eleanor, 
daughter  of  Richard  the  Good,  77  ; 
restored  by  Robert  the  Magnifi¬ 
cent,  87 

— Baldwin  de  Lisle,  father-in-law 
of  William  I.,  123;  guardian  of 
Philip  I.  of  France,  131 

— Robert  le  FrLon,  187 

— Robert  II.,  a  leader  in  first  Cru¬ 
sade,  205 ;  family  alliances  of, 
205 

— Baldwin  VII.  supports  William 
Clito  against  Henry  I.,  221,  222 

Folk-land,  the,  149  ;  becomes  part  of 
king's  demesne,  157 

Forests,  numbers  of,  in  Norman 
times,  242 ;  courts,  243 ;  laws, 

243 

Forest,  the  New,  fatal  to  the  Con¬ 
queror’s  family — death  of  William 
II.  in,  210,  211 

Frankpledge  system,  152;  extended 
by  William  I.,  162  ;  maintained  by 
Henry  I.,  228 

Friars,  members  of  Commu  e  Conci¬ 
lium,  248 

Fulk,  see  Anjou 


Geoffrey,  Bishop  of  cout- 

ances,  at  Hastings,  141 
— of  Brittany,  see  Brittany 
—  Martel  of  Anjou,  96,  128,  129 
Gerberoi,  battle  of,  187 
Germany,  rise  of  kingdom  of,  four 
nations  of,  38 
Gesiths,  the,  98 

Gisela,  daughter  of  Charles  the 
Simple  ;  wife  of  Rollo,  36 
Gisors,  castle  of,  seized  by  William 
Rufus.  209 

Gisors,  Treaty  of,  221 
Githa.  mother  of  Harold,  raises 
Exeter  against  William  I.,  145 
Gloucester,  sessions  of  Curia  Regis 
at,  240 

Godfrey  of  Bouillon,  a  leader  in  1st 
Crusade,  205  ;  a  type  of  the  Cru¬ 
saders,  205  ;  King  <f  Jerusalem, 
208 

Godiva,  Lady,  118 

Godwine,  Earl  of  Wessex,  leader  of 
English  party,  118 ;  his  daughter 


266 


Index. 


HAR 

marries  Edward  the  Confessor, 
120 ;  exile  of,  120;  return  of,  121  ; 
dies,  122 

Gorm  the  Old  establishes  his  autho¬ 
rity  over  Denmark,  12 

Grantmesnil,  Ivo  de,  rebels  against 
Henry  I.,  216 

Greenland,  Norwegian  colony  in, 
28 

Gregory  VII.,  son  of  a  Tuscan  car¬ 
penter,  at  Clugny,  made  pope, 
175;  his  scheme,  177.  178  ;  de¬ 
mands  homage  of  William  I.,  181; 
his  wish  to  start  a  crusade,  204  ; 
quarrels  with  the  Emperor  Henry 
IV.,  182 

Guader,  Rtlph,  Earl  of  Norfolk,  re¬ 
bels  against  William  I.,  185 

Gueaora,  wife  of  Richard  the  Fear¬ 
less,  72 

Guilds,  rise  of,  244  ;  frith  guilds  and 
merchant  guilds,  245  ;  craft  guilds, 

249 

Guiscard,  Robert,  83  ;  Duke  of 
Aoulia.  84  ;  his  invasions  of  eastern 
empire,  85 

Gunhild,  daughter  of  Canute,  m  irries 
Henry  III.,  115 

Gurth,  brocher  of  Harold,  gains 
earldom  of  East  Anglia,  133  ;  killed 
at  Hastings,  142 

Guy  of  Burgundy,  see  Burgundy. 


HADUIS  A.,  sister  of  Richard  the 
Good,  marries  Geoffrey  of 
Brit  any,  77 

Harald  BUatand  defeats  Lewis  on 
the  Dives  and  restores  Richard 
the  F earless,  56 

—  Hardrada  joins  Varangian 
guard  expeditions  against  Sicily 
and  Saracens  ;  marries  Elizabeth, 
daughter  of  Yaros'af,  33  ;  king  of 
Norway,  31;  invades  England; 
killed  at  Stamford  bridge,  135- 
T37 

Harald  Harfagr  establishes  his  au¬ 
thority  over  Norway,  12 
Harding,  Stephen,  founds  monastery 
of  Citeaux,  232 

Har'otta,  mother  of  William  the 
Conqueror,  87 
Harold  son  of  Canute,  116 
—  Earl  of  East  Ang'ia,  118;  in  Ire-  ; 
land,  121  ;  supremacv  of,  132; 
accused  of  murder  of  Edward  the 


HEN 

iEtheling,  133  ;  his  Welsh  war,  133 ; 
his  oath  to  William,  134  ;  elected 
king,  135 ;  marries  Edith,  sister 
of  Eiwin  and  Morcar,  135  ;  defeats 
Tostig  and  Harald  Hardrada  at 
Stamford  B  idge,  137;  defea  ed 
and  killed  at  Hastings,  141 
Harthacnut,  son  of  Canute,  116 
Hastings,  battle  of,  141 
Halie  de  la  Fleche  rebels  against 
William  II.,  210 

Henry  I.,  William’s  prophecy  con¬ 
cerning,  190;  conduct  after  his 
father's  death,  190 ;  early  life  of, 
213;  his  election,  214  ;  his  charter, 
215;  recalls  Anselm  and  imprisons 
Ranulf  Flambard,  215.  216;  mar¬ 
ries  Matilda,  daughter  of  Malcolm, 
216;  quarrels  with  Robert,  216; 
reduces  rebel  barons,  216;  invades 
Normandy,  216  ;  takes  Robert  pri¬ 
soner  at  Tinchebrai,  216;  unites 
Normandy  and  England,  216 ; 
policy  towards  Wales,  217;  quar¬ 
rel  with  Anselm  concerning  inves¬ 
titures,  220  ;  his  ecclesiastical 
pol  cy,  219,  225  ;  founds  S  es  of 
Ely  and  Carlisle,  223 ;  wars  with 
France,  221  ;  Tieatyof  Gisors.  222; 
alliances  with  Empire  and  Brit¬ 
tany,  222  ;  wins  battle  of  Brenne- 
ville,  222  ;  despair  at  d;ath  ofhis 
son  William.  222;  finally  secures 
Normandy,  Brittany,  and  Maine, 
224  ;  extent  of  his  dominions,  224  ; 
marries  Adelais  of  Louvain,  225  ; 
marries  Matilda  to  Geoffrey  of 
Aujou,  and  tries  to  secure  her  suc¬ 
cession,  225  ;  dies,  225  ;  his  anti- 
feudal  policy  and  administration, 
226  ;  revives  local  courts,  increases 
centralization,  226  ;  creates  a  new 
ministerial  nobility,  227 ;  his 
charters  to  towns,  228 ;  his  cha¬ 
racter,  228  ;  his  policy  towards  the 
Engli  h,  229 

Henry  III.,  Emperor  marries  Gun¬ 
hild,  daughter  of  Canute,  115 
— IV.,  quarrels  of,  with  pope,  181, 
199 

— V.  marries  Matilda,  daughter  of 
Henry  I.,  222;  dies,  225 
—  I.  of  France,  assisted  by 
Robert  the  Magnificent  to  gain 
the  throne,  89  ;  grants  the  Vexin 
to  Robert,  89  ;  supports  Duke 
William,  94;  beginning  of  hostility 


Index. 


267 


HYI 

between  Paris  and  Normandy,  124; 
aids  rebels  against  Duke  William, 
127  ;  his  forces  defeated  at  Mor- 
temer,  127  ;  joins  Geoffrey  Martel 
against  Willliim,  defeated  at  Vara- 
ville,  130 ;  dies,  130 
Henry  Eudes,  Duke  of  Burgundy, 
76  ;  see  Burgundy 

—  of  Huntingdon,  chronicler,  217 
—of  Saxony,  38 

Herbert,  Count  of  Maine,  comments 
himself  to  Duke  William  and  de- 
cl  res  him  h  s  heir,  dies,  131 

—  II.  of  Vermandois,  40  ;  his 
two  daughters  marry  Arnulf  I.  of 
Flanders  and  William  Longsword, 
50 ;  rebels  against  Charles  the 
Simple,  42  ;  foists  his  son  into  See 
of  Rheims,35;  turns  againstRudolf 
of  Burgundy,  44  ;  death  of,  58  ; 
see  Vermandois 

Hereford,  Earls  of,  see  Fitzosbern, 
Breteuil,  Roger  and  William 
Heretoga,  the,  148 

Hereward  rebels  against  William  I., 
J45 

Herluin  founds  Monastery  of  Bee,  112 
Hildebrand.  See  Gregory  VII. 
Hugh  Capet,  his  birth,  54 ;  succeeds 
Hugh  the  Great,  und  :r  guardian¬ 
ship  of  Duke  Richard,  54  ; 
elected  King  of  France;  importance 
of  election,  63  ;  extent  of  his  do¬ 
minions,  67 

—  the  Great,  the  king-maker  of 
his  day,  42  ;  supports  Rudolf  of 
Burgundy,  42  ;  imprisons  Charles 
the  Simple,  42  ;  guardian  of  Lewis 
d’Outre-iner, 46;  joins  Lewisagainst 
Richard  the  Fearless,  55  ;  granted 
overlordship  of  Burgundy,  55  ; 
quarrels  with  Lewis,  55  ;  sides 
with  Richard  the  Fearhss  and 
g'ves  him  his  daughter,  Emma,  to 
wife,  57  ;  becomes  chief  opponent 
of  the  Karolings,  57  ;  guardian  of 
Lothair,  61 ;  dies,  6r 

Hugh,  Count  of  Maine,  129,  130 

—  Lupus,  Earl  of  Chester,  168,  179 
Hugh  or  Vermandois,  a  leader  in 

first  Crus  ide,  20  > 

Humphrey  of  Hauteville,  82  :  suc¬ 
ceeded  by  Robert  Guiscard,  83 
Hundred,  the,  149.  See  Courts 
Hungarians,  their  ravages  in  Europe, 

t  33 

Hy-Ivar,  the,  24 


LAN 

ICELAND,  Norwegian  settlement 
in  and  republic  of,  26 
Icelanders  aid  Harald  Hardrada,  136 
Ingelger,  Count  of  Anjou,  see  Anjou 
Inquests  by  sworn  jurors,  240 
Investitures,  lay,  condemned  by 
Gregory  VII.,  178 

—  quarrel  between  Pope  and  Em¬ 
peror  about,  182,  199 
—  quarrel  between  Anselm  and 
Rufus,  199 

—  quarrel  between  Anselm  and 
Henry  I.,  217 

—  question  compromised,  218 
Iona  plundered  by  Northmen,  24 
Ireland,  Norwegian  invasions  of,  24 
—  battles  of  Tara  and  Clontarf  in, 

25 

— death  of  Magnus  of  Norway  in, 

25 

— Harold  in,  120  ;  aids  rebels  against 
William  I.,  145 

— conquered  by  Henry  II.,  232 
Italy,  condition  of,  in  eleventh  cen¬ 
tury,  81  ;  Norman  settlements  in, 
81  ;  kingdom  of  Apulia,  ib. ,  232  ; 
prosperity  under  Normans,  85 

ERUSALEM  taken  by  the  Turks, 
204 

— Frankish  kingdom  of,  208,  532 
Judith  of  Brittany,  wife  of  Richard 
the  Good,  76 

— niece  of  William  I.,  wife  of  Wal- 
theof,  185 

Jumieges,  Monastery  of,  no 
— Robert  of.  Archbishop  of  Canter¬ 
bury,  119  ;  driven  from  England, 
121 

Justices,  the  itinerant,  236,  239 
Justiciary,  the,  227,  235 

KENT  rebels  against  William  I., 
145 

—  a  County  Palatine  under  Odo,  169  ; 
abolished,  169 

Kief,  capital  of  Ruric's  kingdom, 

30 

King,  the  Anglo-Saxon,  148-156 
— the  Norman,  234,  240 
Knights,  members  of  Commune 
Concilium,  242 

LiETS,  the,  148  ;  how  affected  by 
Norman  Conquest,  163 
l  Lanfranc  of  Pavia^at  Avranches,  112; 


268 


Index. 


LOU 

Prior  of  Bee,  113  ;  controversy 
with  Berengarius,  114;  opposes 
marriage  of  William  and  Matilda, 
123  ;  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
179  ;  his  policy,  179,  183;  supports  I 
Rufus  against  Robert,  103  ;  sends  | 
English  clergy  to  Scotland,  201  ; 
death  of,  193 

Laon,  capital  of  kingdom  of  West 
Franks,  38,  39,  65  ;  Richard  the 
Fearless  a  prisoner  at,  55 
Largs,  battle  of,  22 
Leet,  Sheriffs,  239 ;  of  the  manor, 
242 

Legates,  policy  of  Henry  I.  towards, 
219 

Leicester,  Earl  of,  see  Mellent. 

Leo  IX.  defeated  by  Normans  at 
Civitella,  82 ;  grants  Apulia  to 
Normans,  82 

Leofric,  Earl  of  Mercia,  118 ;  turns 
against  Godwine,  120 
Leofwine,  son  of  Godwine,  120,  142 
Leutgarda,  wife  of  William  Long- 
sword,  49 ;  marries  Theobald  of 
Blois  ;  her  hostility  to  Richard  the 
Fearless,  54 

Lewis  d’Outre-mer,  King  of  West 
Franks,  45  ;  joins  Hugh  the  Great 
against  Richard  the  Fearless,  55  ; 
quarrels  with  Hugh,  55 ;  taken 
prisoner  at  battle  on  the  Dives,  56; 
succeeded  by  Lothaire,  61 
— V.,  King  of  West  Franks,  62 
Lewis  VI.  of  France  supports  Wil¬ 
liam  Clito against  Henry  I.,  makes 
Treaty  of  Gisors,222,  223  ;  defeated 
at  Brenneville,  223 
Lichfield,  See  of,  removed  to  Chester, 
181 

Lombardy,  throne  of,  81 
London,  William  crowned  at,  143  ; 
supports  Rufus,  192;  Tower  of, 
completed  by  Rufus,  209  ;  secured 
by  Henry  I.,  212  ;  condition  of,  in 
Norman  times,  247 
Lothaire,  King  of  West  Franks,  61  ; 
quarrels  with  Otho  II.  about  Lo¬ 
ti. aringia,  62  ;  succeeded  by  Lewis 
V.,  62 

Lotharingia  refuses  to  acknowledge 
Conrad  of  Franconia,  41  ;  supports 
Charles  the  Simple,  41 ;  subject  of 
dispute  between  Lothaire  and 
Otho  II. ,  62 
Louis  of  Provence,  39 


MAT 

Macbeth,  200 

Magnus  of  Norway,  death  in 
Ireland,  25 

Magnus  overthrows  Swegen,  30,  116 
Maine  g.ven  to  Rollo  by  Charles 
the  Simple,  36,  42;  overlordship 
claimed  by  Geoffrey  of  Anjou,  129  ; 
war  about,  129  ;  Geoffrey  occupies 
it,  131  ;  Herbert,  Count  of,declares 
Duke  William  his  he  r,  131  ;  seized 
by  Walter  of  Nantes,  132  ;  con 
quered  by  William,  132  ;  rebels 
against  William  under  Azzo  of 
Este,  and  appeals  to  Fulk  of  An¬ 
jou,  184  ;  involved  by  William, 184; 
Robert,  son  of  William,  acknow¬ 
ledged  as  Count  at  treaty  of  Blan- 
chelande,  184;  rebels  against  Rufus 
under  Helie  de  la  Fleche,  210 ;  Fulk 
V.  cla'ms  overlordship  over,  222  ; 
overlordship  finally  secured  by 
Henry  1.,  223;  lost  in  reign  of 
John,  223 

Malcolm  of  Scotland  overthrows 
Macbeth,  201  ;  aids  Harald  Har- 
drada,  136 

— Canmcre  marries  Margaret, sis  er  of 
Edgar,  145,  201;  aids  rebels  against 
William  I.  ib.  ;  submits  to  William, 
146;  his  Anglicizing  policy,  201; 
invades  England,  slain  at  Aln¬ 
wick,  202 

Manorial  courts,  241 
Manors  under  Anglo-Saxons,  154  ; 
under  William  I.,  168;  the  Manor, 

241 

Mans,  Le,  rises  against  William  and 
forms  a  municipality,  184 
Mantes  burnt  by  William  I.;  his 
fatal  accident  at,  189 
— Walter  of.  See  Maine,  132 
Margaret,  of  Maine,  wife  of  Robert 
of  Normandy,  131 

— sister  of  Edgar  the  ^Etheling,  wife 
of  Malcolm,  145,201 
—  of  Scotland,  married  Eric  of  Nor¬ 
way,  26 

Mark  system,  3;  of  Anglo-Saxons, 
148 

Marriages,  Danish,  53 
Marshal,  the,  235 
Matilda,  wife  of  William  I.,  123 
—  daughter  of  Malcolm,  wife  of 
Henry  I.,  214,  226 

—  Empress,  daughter  of  Henry  I., 
wife  of  Henry  V.,  223  ;  wife  of 
Geoffrey  of  Anjou,  224 


I?idex. 


269 


NOR 

Maude,  sister  of  Richard  the  G°°d» 
marries  Eudes  II.  of  Blois,  76 
M  client,  Robert,  Count  of,  supports 
Henry  I.,  214;  Earl  of  Leicester> 
214 

Mercenaries  in  Norman  times,  248  ; 
used  by  William  I.,  187  ;  used  by 
William  Rufus,  201 
Mercia  under  Leofric,  118 
Methjdius  translates  Bible  into  Sla¬ 
vonic,  29 

Michel,  Mount  St.,  Monastery  of, 

IIT 

Military  system,  Norman,  247 
Militia.  Anglo-Saxon,  149  ;  continued 
by  William,  161,  247 
Monasteries,  importance  of,  114 

—  English,  reformed  by  Lanfranc, 
i8r 

Mzmasticism  in  Normandy,  110-113 
Montgomery,  house  of,  rebels  against 
Duke  William,  92. 

—  Roger  of,  at  Hastings,  140 

—  made  Earl  of  Shrewsbury,  168  ; 
supports  Robert  against  Rufus,  192 

—  see  Belesme 

Morcar  and  Edwin,  see  Edwin 
Mortain,  Count  of,  half-brother  of 
William  I.,  supports  Robert  against 
Rufus,  192 

—  William,  son  of  preceding,  rebels 
against  Henry  I..  215;  taken  pri¬ 
soner  at  Tinchebrai  and  blinded, 
216 

Mortemer,  battle  of,  127 
Mowbray,  Robert,  Earl  of,  kills 
Malcolm  at  Alnwick,  201  :  rebels 
against  Rufus,  201 
Murdrum,  the,  239 
Mythology  of  the  Northmen,  7 


ESTA,  mistress  of  Henry  I., 
211 

Nicholas  II.,  Pope,  grants  title  of 
duke  to  Robert  Guiscard,  83 

Nithard  killed  by  Northmen,  16 

Nobility,  Norman,  policy  of  William 
I.  towards,  167,  174 

—  difference  between  English  and 
French,  171 

—  their  revolts  against  Norman 
kings,  172 

—  Ministerial,  created  by  Henry  I., 
227 

Norderies,  the,  25 

Norfolk,  Earl  of,  see  Guader 

T 


ODO 

Normandy  granted  to  Rollo,  34; 
condition  of,  under  Rollo,  36  ; 
under  Richard  the  Fearless,  70; 
under  Duke  William,  109  ;  under 
Henry  I.,  221,  250;  feudalism  in, 
108 

—  left  to  Robert,  190  ;  pledged  by 
Robert  to  Rufus,  202 ;  Rufus, 
policy  in,  209 

—  its  relations  with  Italy  and  Eng¬ 
land,  205,  250 

—  refuge  of  exiles  under  Henry  I.  ; 
anarchy  under  Robert,  216 

—  united  to  England,  216 :  Henry’s 
policy  in,  216 

—  administration  under  Norman 
kings, 250 

—  municipal  life  in.  250 

—  see  Rollo,  William  Longsword, 
Richard  Fearless,  Richard  the 
Good,  Richard  III.,  Robert  the 
Magnificent,  William,  Robert 

Norman  administration,  233-250 

Normans  in  Ita'y,  80-85;  at  A  versa, 
80 

conquer  Apulia,  81 

—  see  Robert  Guiscard  and  Roger 

—  their  influence  on  first  Crusade, 
204  ;  family  alliances  of,  204. 

—  their  influence  in  Europe,  233 

Northmen,  meaning  of  term,  2 

—  at  home — social  and  political  con¬ 
dition  of,  1,7  ;  mythology,  7 

—  their  invasions,  11, 13,  15-32 

—  see  Norwegian.  Swedes,  Danes 

—  their  character,  arms,  and  ships, 
17 

—  in  Gaul,  32  ;  geographical  division 
of  their  settlements,  33 

Northumbria  under  Siward,  118,  see 
Siward  ;  under  Tostig,  133  ;  under 
Edwin  and  Morcar,  see  Edwin 

—  Mowbray,  Earl  of,  see  Mowbray 

Norway,  condition  of.  in  eighth  cen¬ 
tury,  2,  7  ;  in  twelfth  century.  232 

—  see  Harald  Harfagr,  Harald  Har- 
drada,  Canute,  Olaf,  Magnus,  Eric, 
Swegen 

Norwegians,  their  invasions  of  Scot¬ 
land,  Orkneys,  and  Shetland, 
22-24  ;  Hebrides  and  West  Coast, 
24-26  ;  Iceland,  Faroe,  Greenland, 
26-28 


ODO,  Bishop  of  Bayeux,  at  Has¬ 
tings,  140 ;  and  Earl  of  Kent, 


27° 


Index. 


POL 

regent  in  England,  145 ;  his  de¬ 
signs  on  the  Papacy  arrested  by 
William  I.,  187;  supports  Robert 
against  William  II.,  192 

—  of  Brittany,  see  Brittany 

—  brother  of  Henry  I.  of  France,  in¬ 
vades  Normandy — defeated  at  Mor- 
temer,  126 

Olaf,  St.,  of  Norway,  30 

—  threatens  an  invasion  of  England, 
187 

—  of  Sweden,  30 
Ordeal,  the,  151,  152 

Ordericus  Vitalis,  monk  of  St.  Ev- 
roul  and  chronicler,  205,  215 
Orkneys,  jarls  of,  23,  136;  union  of 
with  Scotland,  24 

Osmund  de  Centvilles,  53;  aids 
Richard  the  Fearless  to  escape 
from  Laon,  56 

Otho,  William,  Count  of  Burgundy, 
claims  the  duchy  of,  76 

—  I.,  Holy  Roman  Emperor,  38; 
aids  Lewis  d’Outre-mer  against 
Richard  the  Good,  59 

• —  II.  quarrels  with  Lothaire  about 
Lotharingia,  62  ;  his  death,  62. 

ALATINE,  the  Counties,  168 
Palgrave,  Sir  F.,  description  of 
inroads  of  Northmen,  16 
Paris  granted  to  Robert  the  Strong, 
34  ;  see  Eudes,  Robert,  Hugh  the 
Great,  Hugh  Capet 
Paschal  II.,  Pope,  quarrel  with 
Henry  V.  about  Investitures,  218: 
compromise  with  Henry  I-,  218 
Peasants  revolt  under  Richard  the 
Good,  71  ;  their  latter  condition  in 
Normandy,  73 

Pecquigny,  murder  of  William  Long- 
sword  at,  50 

Pembrokeshire,  Flemish  colony  in, 
217 

People,  misery  of,  in  tenth  century, 
33 

Pevensey,  William  I.  lands  at,  138 
Philip  I.  of  France  joins  Robert 
against  William  I.,  186:  quarrels 
with  William  I.  about  the  Vexin, 
189  ;  wars  with  William  II.,  209 
Pilgrimages,  frequency  of,  203 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  155,  239 
Poictiers,  Count  of,  joins  rebels 
against  Duke  William,  127 
Police,  Anglo-Saxon,  152 ;  under 
Henry  I.,  228 


RIC 

Ponthieu,  Count  of|  rebels  against 
Duke  William,  127  ;  Harold  driven 
on  coast  of,  134 

Pontlevoi,  defeat  of  Odo  of  Blois  at, 
129 

Popa,  mother  of  William  Longsword, 

50 

Presentment  of  Englishry,  the,  239 


RALPH  GUADER,  Earl  of  Nor¬ 
folk,  rebels  against  William  I., 
186 

Raoul  the  Staller,  119 
Renaud  of  Franche  Comte  marries 
Alice,  daughter  of  Richard  the 
Good,  77 

Rheims,  See  of,  40-  competition  for, 
45  ;  Archbishop  of,  supports  Hugh 
Capet,  72 

Richard  the  Fearless,  son  of  Esprota, 
51  ;  sent  to  Bayeux  to  learn  the 
Danish  tongue,  49  ;  Duke  of  Nor¬ 
mandy,  accession,  52 ;  abjures 
Christianity,  54;  his  subjects  re¬ 
bel,  aided  by  Lewis  and  Hugh,  54  ; 
a  prisoner  at  Laon,  55  ;  escapes 
from  Laon,  55 ;  refuses  homage  to 
Lewis,  56;  m  rries  Emma,  daugh¬ 
ter  of  Hugh,  and  becomes  his  vas¬ 
sal,  56  ;  guardian  of  Hugh  Capet, 62; 
supports  his  election,  63  ;  marries 
Guenorn,  69;  his  wars  with  Eng¬ 
land  69 ;  his  family,  69 ;  die  ,  69  ; 
founds  Fecamp  and  Mount  bt. 
Michel,  hi 

Richard  the  Good,  Duke  of  Nor¬ 
mandy,  his  accession,  71 ;  crushes 
out  revolt  of  the  peasants,  71  ;  his 
alliance  with  Robert  I.,  74:  war 
and  marriage  alliance  with  Eudes 
of  Blois,  75,  77;  marriage  alliance 
with  Brittany,  77;  war  and  alli¬ 
ance  with  Ethelred  the  Unready, 
78  ;  Emma,  his  daughter,  marries 
Ethelred,  78;  his  marriage  alli¬ 
ances  with  Burgundy  and  Flan¬ 
ders,  78  ;  his  patronage  of  eccle¬ 
siastical  foundations,  111 ;  dies,  86 
—  III.,  Duke  of  Normandy,  86 
—  the  Justiciar,  40;  see  Burgundy 
Robert,  Duke  of  Burgundy,  88 ;  see 
Burgundy 

—  le  Frison,  Count  of  Flanders, 
threatens  an  invasion  of  England, 
187:  see  Flanders 
—  of  France,  88 


Index . 


271 


ROU 

Robert  of  Jumieges,  see  Jumieges 

—  the  Magnificent,  Duke  of  Nor¬ 
mandy,  his  character,  86  ;  reduces 
Brittany,  restores  Baldwin  of  Flan¬ 
ders,  87 ;  assists  Henry  I.  of 
France,  88  ;  gains  the  Vexin,  88; 
marries  Estrith,  sister  of  Canute, 
assists  the  ^Ethelings,  88 ;  his  pil¬ 
grimage  and  death,  89 

—  of  Normandy,  son  of  William  I., 
betrothed  to  sister  of  Herbert  of 
Maine,  131 ;  recognized  as  Count 
of  Maine,  184  ;  rebels  against  his 
father,  186  ;  battle  of  Gerberoi, 
187 ;  Normandy  left  him  by  his 
father,  190 ;  disputes  the  English 
crown  with  Rufus,  192;  Treaty  of 
Caen,  193  ;  renewed  war  with  Ru¬ 
fus,  201;  pledges  Normandy  to 
Rufus,  and  goes  on  first  Crusade, 
202  ;  his  character,  207 ;  marries 
Sibylla  of  Conversana,  212  ;  dis¬ 
putes  Henry  I.'s  claim,  invades 
England,  resigns  the  crown,  214  ; 
subsequent  quarrels,  215  ;  anarchy 
of  Normandy  under,  216 ;  taken 
prisoner  at  Tinchebrai,  216 ;  im¬ 
prisoned  at  Cardiff  and  dies,  216 

Robert,  Duke  of  Paris,  40 ;  rebels 
against  Charles  the  Simple,  killed 
at  Soissons,  42  ;  see  Paris 

—  the  Strong,  Paris  granted  to  him, 
34,  see  Paris 

Rochester,  castle  of,  reduced  by  Ru¬ 
fus,  143 

Roger,  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  see 
Salisbury 

—  Count,  conquers  Sicily,  85 

—  II.,  King  of  Sicily  and  Apulia,  84 

—  de  Toesny,  see  Toesny 

Rognwald,  Earl  of  Mori,  father  of 

Rollo  and  Einar,  23,  35 

Roll,  the  Pipe,  238 ;  of  the  Chancel¬ 
lor,  238 

Rollo  settles  at  Rouen,  35 ;  gains 
Normandy  at  Treaty  of  Clair-on- 
Epte,  36  :  aids  Charles  the  Simple 
against  Robert  of  Paris,  42 ;  gains 
the  Bessin  and  Cotentin,  42  ;  abdi¬ 
cates  in  favour  of  his  son,  and  dies, 
43 

Roman  law,  its  influence  on  feudal 
system,  97,  99 

Rome,  council  of,  lay  investitures 
condemned,  218 

Rouen,  Rollo  at,  35 ;  seized  by 


STE 

Lewis  at,  54  ;  death  of  William  I. 
at,  190 

Rudolf,  King  of  Arles,  38 
—  of  Burgundy,  see  Burgundy 
Russia,  kingdom  of,  founded  by 
Ruric,  28 ;  connection  with  Con¬ 
stantinople,  30 ;  with  the  West,  30 ; 
see  Vladimir-Yaroslaf 


SAC  and  Soc,  grants  of,  154 
Sagas,  4 

Salisbury,  See  of,  founded,  181; 
Roger,  Bishop  of,  and  organizer 
of  Curia  Regis  and  office  of  Justi¬ 
ciary,  227,  235 

Saracens,  their  ravages  in  Europe,  33 
Saumur  seized  by  Fulk  Nerra,  127 
Scotland,  Norwegian  invasions  of, 
22-25  ;  influence  of  Norman  con¬ 
quest  on,  200;  civil  war  in,  201; 
cf.  Malcolm,  Donald,  Edgar 
Selsey,  See  of,  removed  to  Chiches¬ 
ter,  181 

Senlac,  see  Hastings 
Sens,  Archbishop  of,  supports  claim 
of  Charles  of  Lorraine,  63 
Sherbourne,  See  of,  removed  to 
Salisbury,  181 

Sheriff,  officer  of  shire  court,  150; 
under  William  I.,  163;  under  Nor¬ 
man  kings,  238,  239 
Sheriff's  tourn  and  leet,  239 
Shetland,  23;  united  to  Scotland 
Shire,  the,  150 
—  Court,  see  Court 
Shrewsbury  a  County  Palatine,  168; 

see  Montgomery  and  Belesme 
—  castle  of,  taken  by  Henry  I.,  215 
Sibylla  of  Conversana,  wife  of  Ro¬ 
bert,  212 

Sicily  in  eleventh  century,  81  ;  pros¬ 
perity  under  Normans,  84,  85  ;  in¬ 
tercourse  with  England  and  Nor¬ 
mandy,  85,  206 ;  conquered  by 
Henry  VI.  ;  see  Roger,  Tancred 
Sigurd  conquers  Caithness  and  the 
Shetlands,  23 

Siward,  Earl  of  Northumbria,  118  ; 
turns  against  Godwine,  120 ;  aids 
Malcolm  Canmore  against  Mac¬ 
beth,  200;  dies,  133 
Socagers,  101 
Soissons,  battle  of,  51 
Somarled,  25 

Stamford  Bridge,  battle  of,  T37 
Stephen  of  Blois,  marries  Adelim 


272 


Index. 


TRI 

daughter  of  Richard  the  Good,  77  ; 
see  Blois 

—  King  of  England,  anarchy  of  Eng¬ 
land  under,  230 

Steward,  the  High,  235 
Sticklestad,  battle  of,  21 
Stigand,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
122  ;  deposed, 179 
Suderies,  the,  25 

Surrey,  William  Warenne,  Earl  of, 
supports  claim  of  Robert  against 
Henry  I.,  214 

Sweden,  condition  of,  in  eighth  cen¬ 
tury,  2-7  ;  in  twelfth  century,  232  ; 
see  Eric,  Olaf,  Canute 
Swedes,  settlement  of,  in  Russia,  28; 
see  Ruric 

Swegen  of  Denmark  invades  Eng¬ 
land,  78 

Swegen  of  Norway,  son  of  Canute, 
116 

—  son  of  Godwine,  120 

TANCRED,  a  leader  in  first  Cru¬ 
sade,  205 ;  a  type  of  the  Crusa¬ 
ders  ;  holds  city  of  Caipha  in  Pa¬ 
lestine,  208 
Tara,  battle  of,  25 

Taxes  under  Henry  I.,  228 ;  Nor¬ 
man,  238 

Tenby,  Flemish  colony  near,  217 
Thanes,  the,  153 
Theobald  of  Blois,  see  Blois 
Theow,  the,  148;  how  affected  by 
Norman  conquest,  163 
Thorstein  Olaveson,  23 
Tinchebrai,  battle  of,  216 
Toesny,  Roger  de,  in  Spain,  80;  re¬ 
bels  against  Duke  William,  92 
Tostig,  brother  of  Harold,  Earl  of 
Northumbria,  133;  banished,  135  ; 
invades  England,  killed  at  Stam¬ 
ford  Bridge,  137 
Tourn,  see  Sheriff 
'Pours  seized  by  Geoffrey  Martel,  129 
Tower  of  London  completed  by  Wil¬ 
liam  II.,  209 
Towns,  see  Borough 
—  Norman,  228,  242-247 
—  Henry  I/s  charter  to,  228 
Township,  the  Anglo-Saxon,  149 
—  Court,  see  Court 
Treasurer,  the,  237 
Trial,  Anglo-Saxon  forms  of,  15 1 
r—  feudal  forms  of,  100 
•—  Norman  forms  of,  162,  239  ;  see 
Compurgation,  Ordeal,  Combat 


WIH 

Trinoda  necessitas,  the,  149;  con¬ 
tinued  by  William  I.,  161 
Truce  of  bod,  109 
Tyrrel  Walter,  21 1 


URBAN  II.,  Pope,  quarrel  with 
Henry  IV.  and  William  11. 
about  investitures,  198 ;  preaches 
firtt  Crusade,  204 


VAL-ES-DUNES,  battle  of,  94 
Valery,  St.,  138 

Varangian  Guard,  30;  joined  by 
English  exiles,  146 
Varaville,  battle  of,  130 
Vassalage,  98 

Vermandois  divided  after  death  of 
Herbert  II.,  57 
—  See  Herbert  II.  Hugh 
Vexin  granted  to  Robert  the  Magni¬ 
ficent,  88  ;  quarrel  between  Philip 
I.  and  William  I.  about,  189;  ques- 
of  Henry  I.’s  supremacy  over,  221 
Vikings,  the,  11 

Villeins,  101 ;  in  England,  .162,  241 
Vladimir  I.  of  Russia,  29 

-II.,  31 


WALES,  Harold's  war  against, 
133 ;  Rufus  conquers  South 
Wales,  208,  209 ;  joins  rebels 

against  Henry  I.,  217  ;  Henry's 
policy  towards  Flemish  colony  in, 
217  ;  conquest  by  Edward  1,217 
Walter  of  Mantes  claims  Maine,  131 
Waltheof,  son  of  Siward,  submits  to 
William,  143  ;  taken  to  Normandy, 
144;  rebels  against  William  I., 
145  ;  alleged  conspiracy  against 
William  I.,  185  ;  his  tragic  death, 
186 

Warenne  William,  Earl  of  Surrey, 
see  Surrey,  214 

Warwick,  Earl  of,  supports  Henry  I., 
214 

Wedmore,  Peace  of,  20 
Wer-gild,  the,  152 

Wessex,  see  Egbert,  Alfred,  God- 
wine,  Harold 

—  effect  of  Danish  invasions  on,  20 
Westminster  Hall  built  by  Rufus, 
209 

—  session  of  Curia  Regis  at,  240 
Wiht-geld,  the,  152 


Index. 


273 


WIL 

William  Clito,  son  of  Robert,  pre¬ 
tender  to  Duchy  of  Normandy, 
221,  224  ;  dies,  224 

—  Duke  of  Normandy,  his  birth 
curbed  by  Talvas  de  Beltsme,  87; 
his  character,  90;  revqlts  against, 
93;  defeats  rebels  at  Va-les-Dunes, 
95  ;  his  treatment  of  Alencon,  96  ; 
founds  abbeys  at  Caen,  111  ;  visits 
England ;  question  of  Edward  the 
Confessor’s  promise,  120 ;  marries 
Matilda,  daughter  of  Baldwin  of 
Flanders:  Lanfranc  conciliated, 
122, 123  ;  renewed  rebellion  against, 
aided  by  Henry  of  France  ,  he  de¬ 
feats  them  at  Murtemer,  127 ;  de¬ 
feats  Henry  of  France  and  Geoffrey 
of  Anjou  at  Varaville,  130;  ordi¬ 
nance  of  Curfew  bell,  131  ;  claims 
and  conquers  Maine,  131  ;  defeats 
Conan  of  Brittany,  134  ;  indigna¬ 
tion  at  hearing  of  Harold's  acces¬ 
sion;  he  denounces  him  as  a  per¬ 
jurer  and  appeals  to  Christendom, 
137  ;  lands  at  Pevensey,  138  ;  wins 
battle  of  Hastings,  140;  secures 
Dover  and  Romney,  143  ;  marches 
on  London;  elected  king  by  the 
Witan,  144 

William  I.  leaves  England  for  Nor¬ 
mandy,  144;  puts  down  the  Eng¬ 
lish  Revolts,  145;  finally  subdues 
England  and  Wales  and  reduces 
Malcolm,  146;  his  policy  towards 
the  English,  159-167  ;  his  policy  to 
the  Norman  nobles,  167-174  ;  his 
ecclesiastical  policy,  179-184;  in¬ 
vades  Maine,  but  respects  pri¬ 
vileges  of  Le  Mans,  184;  makes 
Treaty  of  Blanchelande,  184; 
crushes  out  the  rebellion  of  Ralph 
Guader,  185;  puts  Waltheof  to 
death,  186 ;  rebellion  of  Robert 
against,  action  of  Gerberoi,  186, 
187  ;  arrests  Odo  of  Bayeux,  187  ; 
threatened  by  invasion  from  Den¬ 
mark  and  Norway,  187 ;  exacts 
oath  of  homage  ?*■  Council  of  Sa- 
rum,  187  :  orders  the  Domesday 
Survey,  188;  quarrels  with  Philip 
of  France  about  the  Vexin,  189  , 
sacks  Le  Mans;  his  death,  189; 
insults  offered  to  his  body,  190  ; 
his  character,  19 1 

—  Fitz-osbern,  see  Fitz-osbern 

—  of  Hauteville,  81 

■ —  Longs  word,  his  accession,  44  ; 
supports  Rudolf  of  Burgundy,  45  ; 


YOR 

revolt  of  Brittany  put  down,  46  ; 
Cotentin  and  Channel  Islands 
gained,  46 ;  rebellion  of  Danish 
party  against,  47;  consequent 
change  in  his  policy,  48  ;  divorces 
Esprota  and  marries  Leutgarda, 
sister  of  Herbert  of  Verm,  ndois, 
49 ;  murdered  by  Arnulf  of  Flan¬ 
ders,  50;  his  character,  50;  re¬ 
stores  Monastery  of  Jumieges,  in 
—  of  Malmesbuiy,  his  view  of  first 
Crusade, 2c8 

William  Rufus,  his  father  declares 
him  his  successor,  190;  conduct  on 
William's  death,  190  ;  accession, 
192;  Robert  disputes  his  title  ;  re¬ 
bellion  crushed  192  ;  invades  Nor¬ 
mandy  and  makes  Treaty  of  Caen 
with  Robert,  193  ;  his  character, 
193;  his  ecclesiastical  policy  and 
quarrel  with  Anselm,  194-201  ;  war 
against  Malcolm,  201;  aids  Edgar 
to  win  the  Scottish  throne,  202 ; 
wars  with  feudal  barons  and  Ro¬ 
bert,  202  ;  Normandy  pledged  to 
him  by  Robert,  203  ;  his  success 
and  wickedness  208;  finishes  the 
Tower;  builds  Westminster  Hall, 
209;  Cumberland  incorporated; 
South  Wales  conquered,  209  ;  Nor¬ 
mandy  pacified,  209  ;  wars  against 
Philip  I.  and  Maine,  210;  his  am 
bitious  schemes,  210;  his  unpopu¬ 
larity  and  death  in  the  New  Forest, 
210;  his  dishonoured  bin  ial,  211 
William,  son  of  Henry  I.  marries 
daughter  of  Fulk  of  Anjou  ;  ac¬ 
knowledged  as  heir,  222  ;  drowned 
in  White  Ship,  222 
Winchester,  Rufus  crowned  at,  192  ; 
buried  at,  21 1  ;  royal  treasure  kipt 
at,  236;  seized  by  Henry  I.,  212; 
sts.-ion  of  Curia  Regis  at,  240 
Witenagemot,  its  constitution  and 
powers,  1 ' 6 ;  turi  ed  into  a  feudal 
court  by  W  lliam  I,  162.  234 
Worms,  Diet  of,  question  of  investi¬ 
tures  settled  at,  218 
Wulfstan,  Bishop  of,  the  only  Eng¬ 
lish  bishop  after  the  Conquest,  sup¬ 
ports  Rufus,  192 


\7  AROSLAF  r  f  Russiti,  his  daugh- 
V  ter  marries  Harald  Hardrada,  31 
York  rises  against  William,  145 
—  supremacy  of  Canterbury  over, 
asserted,  179 


"The  volumes  contain  the  ripe  results  of  the  studies  of  men  who 
are  authorities  in  their  respective  fields .” — The  Nation. 


EPOCHS  OF  HISTORY 


EPOCHS  OF 
ANCIENT  HISTORY 


EPOCHS  OF 
MODERN  HISTORY 


Eleven  volumes,  i6mo, 
each  $1.00. 


Eighteen  volumes,  i6mo, 
each  $1.00. 


The  Epoch  volumes  have  most  successfully  borne  the  test  of 
experience,  and  are  universally  acknowledged  to  be  the  best  series 
of  historical  manuals  in  existence.  They  are  admirably  adapted  in 
form  and  matter  to  the  needs  of  colleges,  schools,  reading  circles, 
and  private  classes.  Attention  is  called  to  them  as  giving  the 
utmost  satisfaction  as  class  hand-books. 


Noah  Porter,  President  of  Yale  College. 

“The  ‘  Epochs  of  History’  have  been  prepared  with  knowl¬ 
edge  and  artistic  skill  to  meet  the  wants  of  a  large  number  of 
readers.  To  the  young  they  furnish  an  outline  or  compendium. 
To  those  who  are  older  they  present  a  convenient  sketch  of  the 
heads  of  the  knowledge  which  they  have  already  acquired.  The 
outlines  are  by  no  means  destitute  of  spirit,  and  may  be  used  with 
great  profit  for  family  reading,  and  in  select  classes  or  reading  clubs.” 

Charles  Kendall  Adams,  President  of  Cornell  University. 
“A  series  of  concise  and  carefully  prepared  volumes  on  special 
eras  of  history.  Each  is  also  complete  in  itself,  and  has  no  especial 
connection  with  the  other  members  of  the  series.  The  works  are 
all  written  by  authors  selected  by  the  editor  on  account  of  some 
especial  qualifications  for  a  portrayal  of  the  period  they  respectively 
describe.  The  volumes  form  an  excellent  collection,  especially 
adapted  to  the  wants  of  a  general  reader.” 

The  Publishers  will  supply  these  volumes  to  teachers  at  SPECIAL 
NE  T  RA  TES,  and  would  solicit  correspondence  concerning 
terms  for  examination  and  introduction  copies. 

CHARLES  SCRIBNERS  SONS,  Publishers 

743-745  Broadway,  New  York 


THE  GREAT  SUCCESS  OF 
THE  SERIES 


is  the  best  proof  of  its  general  popularity,  and  the  excellence  of 
the  various  volumes  is  further  attested  by  their  having  been 
adopted  as  text-books  in  many  of  our  leading  educational  institu¬ 
tions.  The  publishers  beg  to  call  attention  to  the  following  list 
comprising  some  of  the  most  prominent  institutions  using  volumes 
of  the  series : 


Smith  College,  Northampton,  Mass. 
Univ.  of  Vermont,  Burlington,  Vt. 
Yale  Univ.,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
Harvard  Univ.,  Cambridge,  Mass. 
Bellewood  Sem.,  Anchorage,  Ky. 
Vanderbilt  Univ.,  Nashville,  Tenn. 
State  Univ.,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 
Christian  Coll.,  Columbia,  Mo. 
Adelphi  Acad.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 
Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind. 
Granger  Place  School,  Canandaigua, 
N.  Y. 

Salt  Lake  Acad., Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 
Beloit  Col.,  Beloit,  Wis. 

Logan  Female  Coll.,  Russellville,  Ky. 
No.  West  Univ.,  Evanston,  Ill. 

State  Normal  School,  Baltimore,  Md. 
Hamilton  Coll.,  Clinton,  N.  Y. 
Doane  Coll.,  Crete,  Neb. 

Princeton  College,  Princeton,  N.  J. 
Williams  Coll.,  Williamstown,  Mass. 
Cornell  Univ.,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 

Illinois  Coll.,  Jacksonville,  Ill. 


Univ.  of  South,  Sewaunee,  Tenn. 
Wesleyan  Univ.,  Mt.  Pleasant,  la. 
Univ.  of  Cal.,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

So.  Car.  Coll.,  Columbia,  S.  C. 
Amsterdam  Acad.,  Amsterdam, 
N.  Y. 

Carleton  Coll.,  Northfield,  Minn. 
Wesleyan  Univ.,  Middletown,  Mass. 
Albion  Coll.,  Albion,  Mich. 
Dartmouth  Coll.,  Hanover,  N.  H. 
Wilmington  Coll.,  Wilmington,  O. 
Madison  Univ.,  Hamilton,  N.  Y. 
Syracuse  Univ.,  Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
Univ.  of  Wis.,  Madison,  Wis. 

Union  Coll.,  Schenectady,  N.  Y. 
Norwich  Free  Acad.,  Norwich,  Conn. 
Greenwich  Acad.,  Greenwich,  Conn. 
Univ.  of  Neb.,  Lincoln,  Neb. 
Kalamazoo  Coll.,  Kalamazoo,  Mich. 
Olivet  Coll.,  Olivet,  Mich. 

Amherst  Coll.,  Amherst,  Mass. 

Ohio  State  Univ.,  Columbus,  O. 

Free  Schools,  Oswego,  N.  Y. 


Bishop  J.  F.  HURST,  ex-President  of  Drew  Theol.  Sem . 

“  It  appears  to  me  that  the  idea  of  Morris  in  his  Epochs  is 
strictly  in  harmony  with  the  philosophy  of  history — namely,  that 
great  movements  should  be  treated  not  according  to  narrow 
geographical  and  national  limits  and  distinction,  but  universally, 
according  to  their  place  in  the  general  life  of  the  world.  The 
historical  Maps  and  the  copious  Indices  are  welcome  additions 
to  the  volumes." 


EPOCHS  OF  ANCIENT 
HISTORY. 


A  SERIES  OF  BOOKS  NARRATING  THE  HISTORY  OF 
GREECE  AND  ROME,  AND  OF  THEIR  RELATIONS  TO 
OTHER  COUNTRIES  AT  SUCCESSIVE  EPOCHS. 

Edited  by 

Rev.  G.  W.  Cox  and  Charles  Sankey,  M.A. 

Eleven  volumes,  i6mo,  with  41  Maps  and  Plans. 
Sold  separately.  Price  per  vol.,  $1.00. 

The  Set,  Roxburgh  style,  gilt  top,  in  box,  $11.00. 


TROY  — ITS  LEGEND,  HISTORY,  AND 
LITERATURE.  By  S.  G.  W.  Benjamin. 

“  The  task  of  the  author  has  been  to  gather  into  a  clear 
and  very  readable  narrative  all  that  is  known  of  legendary, 
historical,  and  geographical  Troy,  and  to  tell  the  story  of 
Homer,  and  weigh  and  compare  the  different  theories  in  the 
Homeric  controversy.  The  work  is  well  done.  His  book  is 
altogether  candid,  and  is  a  very  valuable  and  entertaining 
compendium.” — Hartford  Courant. 

“As  a  monograph  on  Troy,  covering  all  sides  of  the  ques¬ 
tion,  it  is  of  great  value,  and  supplies  a  long  vacant  place  in 
our  fund  of  classical  knowledge.” — N.  Y.  Christian  Advocate. 

THE  GREEKS  AND  THE  PERSIANS.  By 

Rev  G.  W.  Cox. 

“It  covers  the  ground  in  a  perfectly  satisfactory  way. 
The  work  is  clear,  succinct,  and  readable.” — New  York 
Independent. 

“  Marked  by  thorough  and  comprehensive  scholarship  and 
by  a  skillful  style.” — Congregalionalist. 

“It  would  be  hard  to  find  a  more  creditable  book.  The 
author’s  prefatory  remarks  upon  the  origin  and  growth  of 
Greek  civilization  are  alone  worth  the  price  of  the  volume.” 
— Christian  Union. 


EPOCHS  OF  ANCIENT  HISTORY 


THE  ATHENIAN  EMPIRE— From  the  Flight 
of  Xerxes  to  the  Fall  of  Athens.  By  Rev. 

G.  W.  Cox. 

“Mr.  Cox  writes  in  such  a  way  as  to  bring  before  the 
reader  everything  which  is  important  to  be  known  or  learned; 
and  his  narrative  cannot  fail  to  give  a  good  idea  of  the  men 
and  deeds  with  which  he  is  concerned.” — The  Churchman. 

“Mr.  Cox  has  done  his  work  with  the  honesty  of  a  true 
student.  It  shows  persevering  scholarship  and  a  desire  to 
get  at  the  truth.” — New  York  Herald. 

THE  SPARTAN  AND  THEBAN  SUPREMA¬ 
CIES.  By  Charles  Sankey,  M. A. 

“This  volume  covers  the  period  between  the  disasters  of 
Athens  at  the  close  of  the  Pelopenesian  war  and  the  rise  of 
Macedon.  It  is  a  very  striking  and  instructive  picture  of  the 
political  life  of  the  Grecian  commonwealth  at  that  time.” — 
The  Churchman. 

“It  is  singularly  interesting  to  read,  and  in  respect  to 
arrangement,  maps,  etc.,  is  all  that  can  be  desired.” — Boston 
Congregationalist. 

THE  MACEDONIAN  EMPIRE— Its  Rise  and 
Culmination  to  Death  of  Alexander  the 
Great.  By  A.  M.  Curteis,  M.A. 

“A  good  and  satisfactory  history  of  a  very  important  period. 
The  maps  are  excellent,  and  the  story  is  lucidly  and  vigor¬ 
ously  told.” — The  Nation. 

“  The  same  compressive  style  and  yet  completeness  of 
detail  that  have  characterized  the  previous  issues  in  this 
delightful  series,  are  found  in  this  volume.  Certainly  the  art 
of  conciseness  in  writing  was  never  carried  to  a  higher  or 
more  effective  point.” — Boston  Saturday  Evening  Gazette. 

***  The  above  Jive  volumes  give  a  connected  and  complete 
history  of  Greece  from  the  earliest  times  to  the  death  of 
A  lexander. 


EPOCHS  OF  ANCIENT  HISTORY 

EARLY  ROME— From  the  Foundation  of  the 
City  to  its  Destruction  by  the  Gauls.  By 

W.  Ihne,  Ph.D. 

“  Those  who  want  to  know  the  truth  instead  of  the  tra¬ 
ditions  that  used  to  be  learned  of  our  fathers,  will  find  in  the 
work  entertainment,  careful  scholarship,  and  sound  sense.” — 
Cincinnati  Times. 

“  The  book  is  excellently  well  done.  The  views  are  those 
of  a  learned  and  able  man,  and  they  are  presented  in  this 
volume  with  great  force  and  clearness.” — The  Nation. 

ROME  AND  CARTHAGE-The  Punic  Wars. 

By  R.  Bosworth  Smith. 

“  By  blending  the  account  of  Rome  and  Carthage  the  ac¬ 
complished  author  presents  a  succinct  and  vivid  picture  of 
two  great  cities  and  people  which  leaves  a  deep  impression. 
The  story  is  full  of  intrinsic  interest,  and  was  never  better 
told.” — Christian  Union. 

“  The  volume  is  one  of  rare  interest  and  value.” — Chicago 
Interior. 

“An  admirably  condensed  history  of  Carthage,  from  its 
establishment  by  the  adventurous  Phoenician  traders  to  its 
sad  and  disastrous  fall.” — New  York  Herald. 

THE  GRACCHI,  MARIUS,  AND  SULLA.  By 

A.  H.  Beesley. 

“  A  concise  and  scholarly  historical  sketch,  descriptive  of 
the  decay  of  the  Roman  Republic,  and  the  events  which  paved 
the  way  for  the  advent  of  the  conquering  Caesar.  It  is  an 
excellent  account  of  the  leaders  and  legislation  of  the  repub¬ 
lic.” — Boston  Post. 

“  It  is  prepared  in  succinct  but  comprehensive  style,  and  is 
an  excellent  book  for  reading  and  reference.” — A Tew  York 
Observer. 

“  No  better  condensed  account  of  the  two  Gracchi  and  the 
turbulent  careers  of  Marius  and  Sulla  has  yet  appeared.” — 
New  York  Independent. 


EPOCHS  OF  ANCIENT  HISTOR  Y 


THE  ROMAN  TRIUMVIRATES.  By  the  Very  Rev. 
Charles  Merivale,  D.D. 

“  In  brevity,  clear  and  scholarly  treatment  of  the  subject, 
and  the  convenience  of  map,  index,  and  side  notes,  the 
volume  is  a  model.” — New  York  Tribune. 

“  An  admirable  presentation,  and  in  style  vigorous  and 
picturesque.” — Hartford  Courant. 

THE  EARLY  EMPIRE— From  the  Assassina¬ 
tion  of  Julius  Caesar  to  the  Assassination 
of  Domitian.  By  Rev.  W.  Wolfe  Capes,  M.  A. 

“  It  is  written  with  great  clearness  and  simplicity  of  style, 
and  is  as  attractive  an  account  as  has  ever  been  given  in 
brief  of  one  of  the  most  interesting  periods  of  Roman 
History.” — Boston  Saturday  Evening  Gazette. 

“It  is  a  clear,  well-proportioned,  and  trustworthy  perfor¬ 
mance,  and  well  deserves  to  be  studied.” — Christian  at 
Work. 

THE  AGE  OF  THE  ANTON  I N ES-The  Roman 
Empire  of  the  Second  Century.  By  Rev. 
W.  Wolfe  Capes,  M.A. 

“  The  Roman  Empire  during  the  second  century  is  the 
broad  subject  discussed  in  this  book,  and  discussed  with 
learning  and  intelligence.  ” — New  York  Independent. 

“  The  writer’s  diction  is  clear  and  elegant,  and  his  narra¬ 
tion  is  free  from  any  touch  of  pedantry.  In  the  treatment  of 
its  prolific  and  interesting  theme,  and  in  its  general  plan,  the 
book  is  a  model  of  works  of  its  class.” — New  York  Herald. 

“  We  are  glad  to  commend  it.  It  is  written  clearly,  and 
with  care  and  accuracy.  It  is  also  in  such  neat  and  compact 
form  as  to  be  the  more  attractive.” — Congrcgationalist. 

The  above  six  volumes  give  the  History  of  Rome  from 
the  founding  of  the  City  to  the  death  of  Marcus  Aurelius 
Antoninus. 


EPOCHS  OF  MODERN 
HISTORY. 

A  SERIES  OF  BOOKS  NARRATING  THE  HISTORY  OF 
ENGLAND  AND  EUROPE  AT  SUCCESSIVE  EPOCHS 
SUBSEQUENT  TO  THE  CHRISTIAN  ERA. 

Edited  by 

Edward  E.  Morris. 

Eighteen  volumes,  i6mo,  with  74  Maps,  Plans,  and  Tables. 
Sold  separately.  Price  per  vol.,  $1.00. 

The  Set,  Roxburgh  style,  gilt  top,  in  box,  $18.00. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MIDDLE  AGES- 
England  and  Europe  in  the  Ninth  Century. 

By  the  Very  Rev.  R.  W.  Church,  M.A. 

“A  remarkably  thoughtful  and  satisfactory  discussion  of 
the  causes  and  results  of  the  vast  changes  which  came  upon 
Europe  during  the  period  discussed.  The  book  is  adapted  to 
be  exceedingly  serviceable.” — Chicago  Standard. 

“At  once  readable  and  valuable.  It  is  comprehensive  and 
yet  gives  the  details  of  a  period  most  interesting  to  the  student 
of  history.  ” — Herald  and  Presbyter. 

“It  is  written  with  a  clearness  and  vividness  of  statement 
which  make  it  the  pleasantest  reading.  It  represents  a  great 
deal  of  patient  research,  and  is  careful  and  scholarly.” — 
Boston  Journal. 

THE  NORMANS  IN  EUROPE— The  Feudal 
System  and  England  under  the  Norman 
Kings.  By  Rev.  A.  H.  Johnson,  M.A. 

“  Its  pictures  of  the  Normans  in  their  home,  of  the  Scan¬ 
dinavian  exodus,  the  conquest  of  England,  and  Norman 
administration,  are  full  of  vigor  and  cannot  fail  of  holding  the 
reader’s  attention.” — Episcopal  Register. 

“  The  style  of  the  author  is  vigorous  and  animated,  and  he 
has  given  a  valuable  sketch  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  the 
great  Northern  movement  that  has  shaped  the  history  of 
modern  Europe.” — Boston  Transcript. 


EPOCHS  OF  MODERN  HISTORY 


THE  CRUSADES.  By  Rev.  G.  W.  Cox. 

“  To  be  warmly  commended  for  important  qualities.  The 
author  shows  conscientious  fidelity  to  the  materials,  and  such 
skill  in  the  use  of  them,  that,  as  a  result,  the  reader  has 
before  him  a  narrative  related  in  a  style  that  makes  it  truly 
fascinating.” — Congregationalist. 

“It  is  written  in  a  pure  and  flowing  style,  and  its  arrange¬ 
ment  and  treatment  of  subject  are  exceptional.” — Christian 
Intelligencer. 

THE  EARLY  P  L  A  N  T  A  G  E  N  E  T  S-Their 
Relation  to  the  History  of  Europe;  The 
Foundation  and  Growth  of  Constitutional 
Government.  By  Rev.  W.  Stubbs,  M.A. 

“  Nothing  could  be  desired  more  clear,  succinct,  and  well 
arranged.  All  parts  of  the  book  are  well  done.  It  may  be 
pronounced  the  best  existing  brief  history  of  the  constitution 
for  this,  its  most  important  period.” — The  Nation. 

“Prof.  Stubbs  has  presented  leading  events  with  such  fair¬ 
ness  and  wisdom  as  are  seldom  found.  He  is  remarkably 
clear  and  satisfactory.” — The  Churchman. 

EDWARD  III.  By  Rev.  W.  Warburton,  M.A. 

“  The  author  has  done  his  work  well,  and  we  commend  it 
as  containing  in  small  space  all  essential  matter.” — New  York 
Independent. 

“Events  and  movements  are  admirably  condensed  by  the 
author,  and  presented  in  such  attractive  form  as  to  entertain 
as  well  as  instruct.” — Chicago  Interior. 

THE  HOUSES  OF  LANCASTER  AND  YORK 
—The  Conquest  and  Loss  of  France.  By 

Tames  Gairdner. 

“Prepared  in  a  most  careful  and  thorough  manner,  and 
ought  to  be  read  by  every  student.” — New  York  Times. 

“It  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired  as  regards  compactness, 
accuracy,  and  excellence  of  literary  execution.” — Boston 
Journal. 


EPOCHS  OF  MODERN  HISTORY 


THE  ERA  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  REVO¬ 
LUTION.  By  Frederic  Seebohm.  With  Notes,  on 
Books  in  English  relating  to  the  Reformation,  by  Prof. 
George  P.  Fisher,  D.D. 

“For  an  impartial  record  of  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
changes  about  four  hundred  years  ago,  we  cannot  commend  a 
better  manual.” — Sunday-School  Times. 

“All  that  could  be  desired,  as  well  in  execution  as  in  plan. 
The  narrative  is  animated,  and  the  selection  and  grouping  of 
events  skillful  and  effective.” — The  Nation. 

THE  EARLY  TUDORS— Henry  VII.,  Henry 

VIII.  By  Rev.  C.  E.  Moberley,  M.A.,  late  Master  in 
Rugby  School. 

“Is  concise,  scholarly,  and  accurate.  On  the  epoch  of  which 
it  treats,  we  know  of  no  work  which  equals  it.” — N.  Y. Observer. 

“  A  marvel  of  clear  and  succinct  brevity  and  good  historical 
judgment.  There  is  hardly  a  better  book  of  its  kind  to  be 
named.” — New  York  Independent. 

THE  AGE  OF  ELIZABETH.  By  Rev.  M. 
Creighton,  M.A. 

“  Clear  and  compact  in  style  ;  careful  in  their  facts,  and 
just  in  interpretation  of  them.  It  sheds  much  light  on  the 
progress  of  the  Reformation  and  the  origin  of  the  Popish 
reaction  during  Queen  Elizabeth’s  reign  ;  also,  the  relation  of 
Jesuitism  to  the  latter.” — Presbyterian  Review. 

“  A  clear,  concise,  and  just  story  of  an  era  crowded  with 
events  of  interest  and  importance.” — New  York  World. 

THE  THIRTY  YEARS’  WAR— 1  6  1  8- 1  648. 

By  Samuel  Rawson  Gardiner. 

“  As  a  manual  it  will  prove  of  the  greatest  practical  value, 
while  to  the  general  reader  it  will  afford  a  clear  and  interesting 
account  of  events.  We  know  of  no  more  spirited  and  attractive 
recital  of  the  great  era.” — Boston  Saturday  Evening  Gazette. 

“  The  thrilling  story  of  those  times  has  never  been  told  so 
vividly  or  succinctly  as  in  this  volume.  ” — Episcopal  Register. 


EPOCHS  OF  MODERN  HISTORY. 


THE  PURITAN  REVOLUTION  ;  and  the  First 

Two  Stuarts,  1603-1660.  By  Samuel  Rawson 
Gardiner. 

“  The  narrative  is  condensed  and  brief,  yet  sufficiently  com¬ 
prehensive  to  give  an  adequate  view  of  the  events  related.” 
— Chicago  Standard. 

“Mr.  Gardiner  uses  his  researches  in  an  admirably  clear 
and  fair  way.” — Congregationalist. 

' ‘  The  .keten  is  concise,  but  clear  and  perfectly  intelligible.” 
— Hartford  Courant. 

THE  ENGLISH  RESTORATION  AND  LOUIS 
XIV.,  from  the  Peace  of  Westphalia  to  the 
Peace  of  Nimwegen.  By  Osmund  Airy,  M. A. 

“  It  is  crisply  and  admirably  written.  An  immense  amount 
of  information  is  conveyed  and  with  great  clearness,  the 
arrangement  of  the  subjects  showing  great  skill  and  a  thor¬ 
ough  command  of  the  complicated  theme.” — Boston  Saturday 
Evening  Gazette. 

“The  author  writes  with  fairness  and  discrimination,  and 
has  given  a  clear  and  intelligible  presentation  of  the  time.” — 
New  York  Evangelist. 

THE  FALL  OF  THE  STUARTS;  and  Western 
Europe.  By  Rev.  Edward  Hale,  M.A. 

“  A  valuable  compend  to  the  general  reader  and  scholar.” 
— Providence  Journal. 

“It  will  be  found  of  great  value.  It  is  a  very  graphic 
account  of  the  history  of  Europe  during  the  17th  century, 
and  is  admirably  adapted  for  the  use  of  students.” — Boston 
Saturday  Evening  Gazette. 

“An  admirable  handbook  for  the  student.” —  The  Churchman. 

THE  AGE  OF  ANNE.  By  Edward  E.  Morris,  M.A. 

“The  author’s  arrangement  of  the  material  is  remarkably 
clear,  his  selection  and  adjustment  of  the  facts  judicious,  his 
historical  judgment  fair  and  candid,  while  the  style  wins  by 
its  simple  elegance.” — Chicago  Standard. 

“An  excellent  compendium  of  the  history  of  an  important 
period.” — The  Watchman. 


EPOCHS  OF  MODERN  HISTORY. 


THE  EARLY  H ANOVERI ANS-Europe  from 
the  Peace  of  Utrecht  to  the  Peace  of  Aix- 
la-Chapelle.  By  Edward  E.  Morris,  M.A. 

“  Masterly,  condensed,  and  vigorous,  this  is  one  of  the 
books  which  it  is  a  delight  to  read  at  odd  moments  ;  which 
are  broad  and  suggestive,  and  at  the  same  time  condensed  in 
treatment.  ” —  Christian  A dvocate. 

“  A  remarkably  clear  and  readable  summary  of  the  salient 
points  of  interest.  The  maps  and  tables,  no  less  than  the 
author’s  style  and  treatment  of  the  subject,  entitle  the  volume 
to  the  highest  claims  of  recognition.” — Boston  Daily  Ad¬ 
vertiser. 

FREDERICK  THE  GREAT,  AND  THE  SEVEN 
YEARS’  WAR.  By  F.  W.  Longman. 

“  The  subject  is  most  important,  and  the  author  has  treated 
it  in  a  way  which  is  both  scholarly  and  entertaining.” — The 
Churchman. 

“Admirably  adapted  to  interest  school  boys,  and  older 
heads  will  find  it  pleasant  reading.” — New  York  Tribune. 

THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION,  AND  FIRST 
EMPIRE.  By  William  O’Connor  Morris.  With 
Appendix  by  Andrew  D.  White,  LL.D.,  ex-President  of 
Cornell  University. 

“We  have  long  needed  a  simple  compendium  of  this  period, 
and  we  have  here  one  which  is  brief  enough  to  be  easily  run 
through  with,  and  yet  particular  enough  to  make  entertaining 
reading.” — New  York  Evening  Post. 

“The  author  has  well  accomplished  his  difficult  task  of 
sketching  in  miniature  the  grand  and  crowded  drama  of  the 
French  Revolution  and  the  Napoleonic  Empire,  showing 
himself  to  be  no  servile  compiler,  but  capable  of  judicious 
and  independent  criticism.” — Springfield  Republican. 

THE  EPOCH  OF  REFORM-1  830-1  850.  By 

Justin  McCarthy. 

“  Mr.  McCarthy  knows  the  period  of  which  he  writes 
thoroughly,  and  the  result  is  a  narrative  that  is  at  once  enter¬ 
taining  and  trustworthy.” — New  York  Examiner. 

“  The  narrative  is  clear  and  comprehensive,  and  told  with 
abundant  knowledge  and  grasp  of  the  subject.” — Boston 
Courier. 


IMPORTANT  HISTORICAL 
WORKS. 

THE  DAWN  OF  HISTORY.  An  Introduction 
to  Pre- Historic  Study.  New  and  Enlarged  Edition. 
Edited  by  C.  F.  Keary.  i2mo,  cloth,  $1.25. 

This  work  treats  successively  of  the  earliest  traces  of  man  ; 
of  language,  its  growth,  and  the  story  it  tells  of  the  pre-his- 
toric  users  of  it ;  of  early  social  life,  the  religions,  mythologies, 
and  folk-tales,  and  of  the  history  of  writing.  The  present 
edition  contains  about  one  hundred  pages  of  new  matter, 
embodying  the  results  of  the  latest  researches. 

“  A  fascinating  manual.  In  its  way,  the  work  is  a  model 
of  what  a  popular  scientific  work  should  be.” — Boston  Sat. 
Eve.  Gazette. 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  NATIONS.  By  Professor  George 
Rawlinson,  M.A.  l2mo,  with  maps,  $1.00. 

The  first  part  of  this  book  discusses  the  antiquity  of  civiliza¬ 
tion  in  Egypt  and  the  other  early  nations  of  the  East.  The 
second  part  is  an  examination  of  the  ethnology  of  Genesis, 
showing  its  accordance  with  the  latest  results  of  modern 
ethnographical  science. 

“A  work  of  genuine  scholarly  excellence,  and  a  useful 
offset  to  a  great  deal  of  the  superficial  current  literature  on 
such  subjects.  ” —  Congregationalist. 

MANUAL  OF  MYTHOLOGY.  For  the  Use 
of  Schools,  Art  Students,  and  General 
Readers.  Founded  on  the  Works  of  Pet- 
iscus,  Preller,  and  Welcker.  By  Alexander 
S.  Murray,  Department  of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities, 
British  Museum.  With  45  Plates.  Reprinted  from  the 
Second  Revised  London  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  $1.75. 

“  It  has  been  acknowledged  the  best  work  on  the  subject 
to  be  found  in  a  concise  form,  and  as  it  embodies  the  results 
of  the  latest  researches  and  discoveries  in  ancient  mythologies, 
it  is  superior  for  school  and  general  purposes  as  a  handbook 
to  any  of  the  so-called  standard  works.” — Cleveland  Herald. 

'  ‘  Whether  as  a  manual  for  reference,  a  text-book  for  school 
use,  or  for  the  general  reader,  the  book  will  be  found  very 
valuable  and  interesting.” — Boston  Journal. 


IMPORTANT  HISTORICAL  W  OR  NS. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  ROME,  from  the  Earliest 
Time  to  the  Period  of  Its  Decline.  By  Dr. 

Theodor  Mommsen.  Translated  by  W.  P.  Dickson,  D.D., 
LL.  D.  Reprinted  from  the  Revised  London  Edition.  Four 
volumes,  crown  8vo.  Price  per  set,  $8.00. 

“A  work  of  the  very  highest  merit;  its  learning  is  exact 
and  profound  ;  its  narrative  full  of  genius  and  skill ;  its 
descriptions  of  men  are  admirably  vivid.” — London  Times. 

“Since  the  days  of  Niebuhr,  no  work  on  Roman  History 
has  appeared  that  combines  so  much  to  attract,  instruct,  and 
charm  the  reader.  Its  style — a  rare  quality  in  a  German 
author — is  vigorous,  spirited,  and  animated.” — Dr.  Schmitz. 

THE  PROVINCES  OFTHE  ROMAN  EMPIRE. 
From  Caesar  to  Diocletian.  By  Theodor 
Mommsen.  Translated  by  William  P.  Dickson,  D.D., 
LL.D.  With  maps.  Two  vols.,  8vo,  $6.00. 

“  The  author  draws  the  wonderfully  rich  and  varied  picture 
of  the  conquest  and  administration  of  that  great  circle  of 
peoples  and  lands  which  formed  the  empire  of  Rome  outside 
of  Italy,  their  agriculture,  trade,  and  manufactures,  their 
artistic  and  scientific  life,  through  all  degrees  of  civilization, 
with  such  detail  and  completeness  as  could  have  come  from 
no  other  hand  than  that  of  this  great  master  of  historical  re¬ 
search.” — Prof.  W.  A.  Packard,  Princeton  College. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ROMAN  REPUBLIC. 

Abridged  from  the  History  by  Professor  Theodor  Mommsen, 
by  C.  Bryans  and  F.  J.  R.  Hendy.  i2mo,  $1.75. 

“  It  is  a  genuine  boon  that  the  essential  parts  of  Mommsen’s 
Rome  are  thus  brought  within  the  easy  reach  of  all,  and  the 
abridgment  seems  to  me  to  preserve  unusually  well  the  glow 
and  movement  of  the  original.” — Prof.  Tracy  Peck,  Yale 
University. 

“The  condensation  has  been  accurately  and  judiciously 
effected.  I  heartily  commend  the  volume  as  the  most  adequate 
embodiment,  in  a  single  volume,  of  the  main  results  of  modern 
historical  research  in  the  field  of  Roman  affairs.” — Prof. 
Henry  M.  Baird,  University  of  City  of  New  York. 


IMPORTANT  HISTORICAL  WORKS. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  GREECE.  By  Prof.  Dr. 
Ernst  Curtius.  Translated  by  Adolphus  William  Ward, 
M.A.,  Fellow  of  St.  Peter’s  College,  Cambridge,  Prof,  of 
History  in  Owen’s  College,  Manchester.  Five  volumes, 
crown  8vo.  Price  per  set,  $10.00. 

“  We  cannot  express  our  opinion  of  Dr.  Curtius’  book  bet¬ 
ter  than  by  saying  that  it  may  be  fitly  ranked  with  Theodor 
Mommsen’s  great  work.” — London  Spectator. 

“As  an  introduction  to  the  study  of  Grecian  history,  no 
previous  work  is  comparable  to  the  present  for  vivacity  and 
picturesque  beauty,  while  in  sound  learning  and  accuracy  of 
statement  it  is  not  inferior  to  the  elaborate  productions  which 
enrich  the  literature  of  the  age.” — N.  Y.  Daily  Tribune. 

Cy^ESAR:  a  Sketch.  By  James  Anthony  Froude, 
M.A.  i2mo,  gilt  top,  $1.50. 

‘  ‘  This  book  is  a  most  fascinating  biography  and  is  by  far 
the  best  account  of  Julius  Caesar  to  be  found  in  the  English 
language.” — The  London  Standard. 

“He  combines  into  a  compact  and  nervous  narrative  all 
that  is  known  of  the  persona),  social,  political,  and  military 
life  of  Caesar  ;  and  with  his  sketch  of  Caesar  includes  other 
brilliant  sketches  of  the  great  man,  his  friends,  or  rivals, 
who  contemporaneously  with  him  formed  the  principal  figures 
in  the  Roman  world.” — Harper's  Monthly. 

CICERO.  Life  of  Marcus  Tullius  Cicero.  By 

William  Forsyth,  M.A.,  Q.C.  20  Engravings.  New 
Edition.  2  vols.,  crown  8vo,  in  one,  gilt  top,  $2.50. 

The  author  has  not  only  given  us  the  most  complete  and 
well-balanced  account  of  the  life  of  Cicero  ever  published  ; 
he  has  drawn  an  accurate  and  graphic  picture  of  domestic  life 
among  the  best  classes  of  the  Romans,  one  which  the  reader 
of  general  literature,  as  well  as  the  student,  may  peruse  with 
pleasure  and  profit. 

“A  scholar  without  pedantry,  and  a  Christian  without  cant, 
Mr.  Forsyth  seems  to  have  seized  with  praiseworthy  tact  the 
precise  attitude  which  it  behooves  a  biographer  to  take  when 
narrating  the  life,  the  personal  life  of  Cicero.  Mr.  Forsyth 
produces  what  we  venture  to  say  will  become  one  of  the 
classics  of  English  biographical  literature,  and  will  be  wel¬ 
comed  by  readers  of  all  ages  and  both  sexes,  of  all  professions 
and  of  no  profession  at  all.  ” — London  Quarterly. 


VALUABLE  WORKS  ON 
CLASSICAL  LITERATURE 


THE  HISTORY  OF  ROMAN  LITERATURE. 
From  the  Earliest  Period  to  the  Death  of 
Marcus  Aurelius.  With  Chronological  Tables,  etc., 
for  the  use  of  Students.  By  C.  T.  Cruttwell,  M.  A.  Crown 
8vo,  $2.50. 

Mr.  Cruttwell’s  book  is  written  throughout  from  a  purely 
literary  point  of  view,  and  the  aim  has  been  to  avoid  tedious 
and  trivial  details.  The  result  is  a  volume  not  only  suited 
for  the  student,  but  remarkably  readable  for  all  who  possess 
any  interest  in  the  subject. 

“  Mr.  Cruttwell  has  given  us  a  genuine  history  of  Roman 
literature,  not  merely  a  descriptive  list  of  authors  and  their 
productions,  but  a  well  elaborated  portrayal  of  the  successive 
stages  in  the  intellectual  development  of  the  Romans  and  the 
various  forms  of  expression  which  these  took  in  literature.  ” — 
Ar.  Y.  ATalion. 


UNIFORM  WITH  THE  ABOVE. 

A  HISTORY  OF  GREEK  LITERATURE. 
From  the  Earliest  Period  of  Demosthenes. 

By  Frank  Byron  Jevons,  M.A.,  Tutor  in  the  University 
of  Durham.  Crown  8vo,  $2.50. 

The  author  goes  into  detail  with  sufficient  fullness  to  make 
the  history  complete,  but  he  never  loses  sight  of  the  com¬ 
manding  lines  along  which  the  Greek  mind  moved,  and  a 
clear  understanding  of  which  is  necessary  to  every  intelligent 
student  of  universal  literature. 

“  It  is  beyond  all  question  the  best  history  of  Greek  litera¬ 
ture  that  has  hitherto  been  published.” — London  Spectator. 

“  With  such  a  book  as  this  within  reach  there  is  no  reason 
why  any  intelligent  English  reader  may  not  get  a  thorough 
and  comprehensive  insight  into  the  spirit  of  Greek  literature, 
of  its  historic  development,  and  of  its  successive  and  chief 
masterpieces,  which  are  here  so  finely  characterized,  analyzed, 
and  criticised.” — Chicago  Advance. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  PLATO. 

THE  DIALOGUES  OF  PLATO.  Translated 
into  English,  with  Analysis  and  Introduc¬ 
tions.  By  B.  Jowett,  M.A.,  Master  of  Balliol  College, 
Oxford.  A  new  and  cheaper  edition.  Fourvols.,  crown  8vo, 
per  set,  $8.00. 

“  The  present  work  of  Professor  Jowett  will  be  welcomed 
with  profound  interest,  as  the  only  auequate  endeavor  to 
transport  the  most  precious  monument  of  Grecian  thought 
among  the  familiar  treasures  of  English  literature.  The 
noble  reputation  of  Professor  Jowett,  both  as  a  thinker  and  a 
scholar,  is  a  valid  guaranty  for  the  excellence  of  his  perfor¬ 
mance.” — New  York  Tribune. 

SOCRATES.  A  Translation  of  the  Apology, 
Crito,  and  parts  of  the  Phaedo  of  Plato. 

Containing  the  Defence  of  Socrates  at  his  Trial,  his  Conver¬ 
sation  in  Prison,  with  his  Thoughts  on  the  Future  Life,  and 
an  Account  of  his  Death.  With  an  Introduction  by  Professor 
W.  W.  Goodwin,  of  Harvard  College.  i2mo,  cloth,  $1.00; 
paper,  50  cents. 

TALKS  WITH  SOCRATES  ABOUT  LIFE. 
Translations  from  the  Gorgias  and  the 
Republic  of  Plato.  l2mo,  cloth,  $1.00;  paper,  50 
cents. 

A  DAY  IN  ATHENS  WITH  SOCRATES. 
Translations  from  the  Protagoras  and  the 
Republic  of  Plato.  Being  conversations  between 
Socrates  and  other  Greeks  on  Virtue  and  Justice.  i2mo, 
cloth,  $1.00;  paper,  50  cents. 

“  Eminent  scholars,  men  of  much  Latin  and  more  Greek, 
attest  the  skill  and  truth  with  which  the  versions  are  made  ; 
we  can  confidently  speak  of  their  English  grace  and  clearness. 
They  seem  a  ‘  model  of  style,’  because  they  are  without 
manner  and  perfectly  simple.” — W.  D.  Howells. 

“  We  do  not  remember  any  translation  of  a  Greek  author 
which  is  a  better  specimen  of  idiomatic  English  than  this,  or 
a  more  faithful  rendering  of  the  real  spirit  of  the  original 
into  English  as  good  and  as  simple  as  the  Greek.” — New  York 
Evening  Post. 


CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS, 

743  and  745  Broadway,  New  York. 


J  66  N  iaS'82 


\ 


